Case Name: Commonwealth v. Specht, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1923-04-16
Citations: 80 Pa. Super. 607
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 173
Parties: Commonwealth v. Specht, Appellant.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Specht, Appellant.
Practice Superior Court — Appeals—Equal division of appellate fudges.
On an appeal from refusal to quash an indictment, where the appellate court is equally divided, the opinion of the lower court will be affirmed.
Argued November 15, 1922.
Appeal, No. 173, April T., 1923, by defendant, from Q. S. Lawrence County, March sessions, 1922, No. 19, on verdict of guilty in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. L. R. Specht.
Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Affirmed.
Indictment for manufacturing and selling intoxicating liquor without a license. Before Emery, P. J.
Verdict of guilty on which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, was refusal to quash the indictment and refusal of defendant’s motion on arrest of judgment.
April 16, 1923:
A. Martin Graham,, of Cunningham and Graham, and with him Martin c§ Martin, for appellant.
B. L. Hildebrand, District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The only specifications of error which merit consideration are those which refer to the form of the indictment. Had the defendant gone to trial without objection to the indictment, the defects were not such as would have warranted an arrest of the judgment. The judges who sat at the argument are equally divided in opinion as to whether the indictment ought to have been quashed upon the grounds set forth in the defendant's motion, although a majority are of opinion that it might have been quashed for formal defects not challenged by the defendant's motion. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed by a divided court.
The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not' been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.
A similar opinion was delivered in the case of Commonwealth v. Smith, Appeal No. 174, April Term, 1923.