Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. ROTH (08/06/51)

August 6, 1951

COMMONWEALTH
v.
ROTH



COUNSEL

Michael von Moschzisker, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Maurice W. Sporkin, Asst. Dist. Atty., John H. Maurer, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Ross

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 89]

ROSS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction on a charge of receiving stolen goods under the provisions of section 817 of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, 18 P.S. ยง 4817.*fn1 A jury trial having been waived, the case was heard by the trial judge, who found the defendant

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 90]

    guilty and after defendant's motion for a new trial was refused, he took this appeal.

The Commonwealth's case may be summarized as follows: Emanuel Raff, a clerk at the University of Pennsylvania library, testified that on July 21, 1949, between the hours of 6 and 10 p. m., the defendant left a typewriter and a suitcase with him. Logan Clark, Jr., who was then in charge of the lost and found department of the university, testified that 'a man who looks to me like Joseph Roth' left another suitcase and typewriter with him on the same date. In compliance with the rules of the lost and found department, the man who looked to Clark like the defendant signed an information card with reference to the articles turned in as 'Charles Roth'. A handwriting expert called by the Commonwealth testified that in his opinion the defendant had signed the card. The information card contained, inter alia, an election by the signer to have the articles returned to him if unclaimed. The defendant had a brother named Charles Roth.

Both typewriters were shown by their serial numbers to be the property of the John Wanamaker department store. They had been missing from the store and had not been sold. One of the suitcases was exclusive with Wanamaker's; the store had had only one in stock and that one was missing without having been sold. The other suitcase and the contents of the suitcases -- women's clothing and linen dinner sets -- were identical with similar goods handled by Wanmaker's.

The police learned that the typewriters and suitcases reported missing by Wanamaker's were at the lost and found department of the university, and on July 28, 1949 returned them to the store. Shortly after 2 p. m. of July 29, the defendant called at the lost and found department to claim the articles, and was arrested when he attempted to claim them as his property.

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 91]

The defendant denied having turned the articles in to the university library lost and found department. To substantiate this denial the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.