Appeal, No. 225, March T., 1960, from judgment and order of Superior Court, April T., 1960, No. 14, affirming judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Allegheny County, March T., 1958. No. 444, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Albert Ornato. Judgment and order affirmed.
James P. McArdle, with him James E. McLaughlin, and McArdle, Harrington & McLaughlin, for appellant.
William Claney Smith, Assistant District Attorney, with him Edward C. Boyle, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.
The judgment and order of the Superior Court is affirmed on the opinion of Judge WOODSIDE for a unanimous court (HIRT, J., absent), reported at 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 581, 159 A.2d 223.
Judgment and order affirmed.
ING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MUSMANNO:
This Court has affirmed the conviction in this case on the Opinion of the Superior Court, and thus accepts it as its own. There are some statements in that Opinion with which I cannot agree. For instance, the Majority
says: "The evidence established that Ornato was operating a lottery".
How can the Majority make such a statement when the jury specifically acquitted Ornato on the charge of operating a lottery? Is the Majority changing the meaning of the word "established"? Does it intend to say that the verdict of a jury has no validity? Are we now minimizing the sanctity of a jury's verdict? Are we now juridically to say that the verdict of a jury has no ...