Case Name: Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Hollinger
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1951-12-12
Citations: 170 Pa. Super. 180
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 11
Parties: Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Hollinger.
Judges: Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 180–182

Head Matter:
Commonwealth, Appellant, v. Hollinger.
Argued October 1,1951.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
G. Clinton Fogwell, Jr., Assistant Deputy Attorney General, with him Henry M. Bruner, Chief Counsel, and Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, for appellant.
Mark E. Garber, for appellee.
December 12, 1951:

Opinion:
Opinion
Pee Curiam,
Defendant was found guilty of a violation of General Order No. A-191 effective May 1, 1946, of the Pennsylvania Milk Control Commission by a justice of the peace, and a fine of $25 was imposed for delivery of milk to his customers, on each, of three successive days in July, 1949. The order prohibits any milk dealer within the Harrisburg Milk Marketing Area, Area No. 8, from making a delivery of milk to a retail customer more often than once in a 48:hour period, and is known as the "every other day delivery order." On appeal allowed, the case was submitted to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Cumberland County for judicial determination on stipulated facts by the Deputy Attorney General representing the Commonwealth, and defendant's counsel. The court below adjudged, the defendant not guilty as follows : "And, now, April 19,1951, the. appeal is sustained, and the defendant, William Hollinger, is found not guilty. Costs . to be paid "by the County of Cumberland." The Commonwealth appealed to this Court.
The appeal must be quashed, as the Commonwealth had no right to appeal in this case. "It is well settled in this State that the Commonwealth cannot appeal from a judgment of acquittal in criminal prosecutions, except in cases of nuisance, forcible entry and detainer, and forcible detainer (Act of May 19, 1874, P. L. 219). And this is so whether the prosecution be by indictment (Com. v. Coble, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 215; Com. v. Stillwagon, 13 Pa. Superior Ct. 547; Com v. Weber, 66 Pa. Superior Ct. 180), or by summary proceeding, (Com. v. Preston, 92 Pa. Superior Ct. 159; Com v. Benson, 94 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 15-18; Com. v. Ahlgrim, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 595; Com. v. Bertolette, 101 Pa. Superior Ct. 334; City of Scranton v. Noll, 108 Pa. Superior Ct. 94, 164 A. 850)"; Com. v. Obenreder, 144 Pa. Superior. Ct. 253, 254, 19 A. 2d 497, 498. See, also, Com. v. Petersheim, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 90, 70 A. 2d 395; Com. v. Kerr, 150 Pa. Superior Ct. 598, 29 A. 2d 340.
Appeal is quashed.