Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

COMMONWEALTH v. ECKEL (12/09/58)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 9, 1958

COMMONWEALTH
v.
ECKEL, APPELLANT.

Appeals, Nos. 94 to 101, inclusive, Oct. T., 1957, from judgments of Court of Quarter Sessions of Clinton County, Jan. T., 1956, Nos. 56, 57; April T., 1956, Nos. 52, 63, 57, 59, 53, 58; June T., 1956, No. 4, (April T., 1956, No. 50), in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. John P. Eckel. Appeals quashed; reargument refused January 23, 1959.

COUNSEL

Paul N. Gardner, for appellant.

Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (woodside, J., absent).

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 184]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The appeals by defendant from the judgments of sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Clinton County are quashed for violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 34 of this Court, which reads as follows:

"The statement of the questions involved must state the question or questions in the briefest and most general terms, without names, dates, amounts or particulars of any kind. It should not ordinarily exceed fifteen

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 185]

    lines, must never exceed one page, and must always be printed on the first page of the Brief, without any other matter appearing thereon. This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception; ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in the statement of questions involved or suggested thereby."

We may add that we find no merit in the appeals. Moreover, defendant has been granted parole and is currently serving the remainder of his parole time. The opinion of President Judge WILLIAMS, of the Twenty-ninth Judicial District, specially presiding, as reported in 15 Pa.D. &. C.2d 1, substantially answers the numerous contentions which defendant would have us review.

19581209

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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