Appeal from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Lehigh County, June T., 1966, No. 201, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Thomas C. Kubelius.
George A. Hahalis, for appellant.
Wallace C. Worth, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Ervin, P. J. Jacobs and Hoffman, JJ., would reverse and discharge the defendant.
[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 536]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lehigh County finding the defendant guilty of speeding and entering sentence thereon.
There was no stenographic record of the hearing made but the appellant stated in his brief that he accepted the facts as set forth in the opinion of Judge Scheirer.
Defendant was charged with operating his motor vehicle on June 3, 1966 at the rate of 63 miles per hour in a 50-mile speed zone on Route 100, one mile north of Legislative Route No. 39072 in Lowhill Township, Lehigh County.
The prosecutor, a Pennsylvania State Trooper, alone was operating a radar device and gave chase to defendant after locking the radar speedometer. He testified that signs bearing the legend "Radar Enforced" were posted in the area and were regulation "official" signs of uniform size which were measured when installed at the time radar was authorized but not since.
Defendant entered a demurrer to the Commonwealth's evidence, which was overruled. He then testified in his own behalf that on August 26, 1966 he measured a sign on Route 22 that was thirteen inches (presumably in height), and three signs on Route 100 that were eight inches in height. He further said signs were changed at about this time. He did not testify nor was evidence produced that the signs were other than "official" or other than according to regulations on the date of his arrest.
In Com. v. Brose, 412 Pa. 276, 194 A.2d 322, the Supreme Court said: "This appeal is before us on 'broad certiorari' and it is our duty to determine whether the findings of the court below are supported by competent evidence and that the lower court committed no error of law. First Bellefonte Bank v.
[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 537]
Myers, 410 Pa. 298, 301, 188 A.2d 726 (1963).", and in considering the present appeal we are familiar with the case of Com. v. Anspach, 134 Pa. Superior Ct. 369, 4 A.2d 203, which held that The Vehicle Code was ...