Case Name: Auslander v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1944-10-31
Citations: 350 Pa. 473
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 226
Parties: Auslander v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearne, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 350
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Auslander v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Appellant.
Argued September 29, 1944.
Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson and Stearne, JJ.
Robert D. Dalzell, of Balzell, McFall, Pringle & Bredin, for appellant.
Roy T. Clunk, with him Barney Phillips, for appellee.
October 31, 1944:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from an order granting a new trial. The trial judge had admitted a certified transcript of the proceedings before an alderman, offered in evidence by defendant. The learned court below en banc says: "We believe this to have been substantial and prejudicial error such as warrants a new trial, and for that reason alone a new trial will be granted: Magee v. Scott, 32 Pa. 539-540; Katterman v. Stitzer, 7 Watts 189-192; Wol verton v. Com., for use, 7 S. & R. 273-4; Miller v. Brink, 14 D. & C. 292."
We agree that the admission of the transcript was prejudicial error. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial. We have uniformly held that under such circumstances we will not interfere with the action of the court below: Kerr v. Hofer, 341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886; Weinfeld v. Funk, 342 Pa. 160, 20 A. 2d 206; Schornig v. Speer, 343 Pa. 649, 24 A. 2d 12.
Order affirmed.