Henry Greenwald, Wilkes-Barre, Sidney L. Krawitz, Milford, for appellants.
W. Wilson White, White, Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, for intervening appellant.
H. Albert Lehrman, Deputy Attorney General, T. McKeen Chidsey, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Fine, JJ.
[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 288]
This case came before the lower court on the defendants' appeals from summary convictions by a Justice of the Peace. The information charged that they 'wilfully and unlawfully did assist in killing of a deer through the use of an artificial light' in violation of § 704 of the Game Law of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1225, as amended by the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 810, 34 P.S. § 1311.704. After hearing de novo, the court found all of the defendants guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of $100 for the use of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. In addition, an order of forfeiture of the gun, the artificial light, and the Cadillac automobile used in violation of the Act, was entered by the sentencing judge. In each of the appeals of the defendants to this court, DeAngelis Brothers, who held title to the Cadillac automobile, under a conditional sales agreement, were allowed to intervene for the purpose of contesting
[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 289]
the validity of the order of forfeiture of the car. By agreement of all parties the automobile was sold and the fund was turned over to the State Treasurer for ultimate disposition in accordance with the decision of this court.
Section 704(a) with subsection (e) provides that it is unlawful 'to make use of, or take advantage of, any artificial light, battery, or other contrivance or device * * *' in hunting for or killing any wild animal, with certain stated exceptions not applicable here. The trial in the lower court was thorough, and the voluminous testimony supports the conviction of the defendants of violation of the above section of the Act. This the appellants concede, but they seek to set aside the judgment of guilt and the sentences on other grounds.
There is no merit in appellants' contention that the information did not sufficiently charge a violation of the Act. The technical accuracy necessary to an indictment is not essential in an information. Commonwealth v. Spallone, 154 Pa. Super. 282, 35 A.2d 727; Commonwealth v. Ginsberg, 143 Pa. Super. 317, 18 A.2d 121. Moreover, the fact that the transcript of the justice may have been prepared by a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission did not nullify the proceeding, as appellants contend. These questions might have been raised in the common pleas on certiorari which would have brought up every part of the record, including the complaint, but since the defendants elected to proceed by appeal they thereby waived all mere technical errors in the proceedings of the justice which did not go to the question of jurisdiction. Com. v. Scott-Powell Dairies, 128 Pa. Super. 598, 194 A. 684; Steward v. Renner, 87 Pa. Super. 411.
At the trial it was established that a spot light, plugged into the cigarette lighter of the car driven by one of the ...