Case Name: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lottie DeCoursey, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1898-05-17
Citations: 7 Pa. Super. 396
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 204
Parties: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lottie DeCoursey, Appellant.
Judges: Refore Rice, P. J., Wick-ham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady, Smith and Porter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 396–396

Head Matter:
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Lottie DeCoursey, Appellant.
Argued March 8, 1898.
May 17, 1898:
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from sentence of Q. S. Lancaster Co., Aug. Sess., 1897, No. 344, on verdict of guilty,
Refore Rice, P. J., Wick-ham, Beaver, Reeder, Orlady, Smith and Porter, JJ.
Affirmed.
B. Frank Fshleman and O. Beese Faly, for appellant.
George A. Lane, district attorney, and B. G. Atlee, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Wickham, J.,
This case, in its main, features, is not distinguishable from Commonwealth v. Murr, 7 Pa. Superior Ct. 391, except that it does not appear, from the record, that any witness who was asked, in behalf of the commonwealth as to the reputation of the defendant's house, gave any reply whatsoever to the questions put to him. For this reason, as well as the reasons given in Commonwealth v. Murr, supra, the decision wherein has, this day, been handed down, the specifications of error, all whereof are similar to those in the case above referred to, must be overruled.
The judgment is affirmed and it is directed, that the record be remitted to the court below, in order that the sentence may be enforced.