Marion D. Patterson

The case involved Frank S. Linkowski's conviction for the voluntary manslaughter of Frank Zabczyk following a fight at a private club in 1947, where the victim was shot in the back through an open window. The defendant appealed the denial of his motions for arrest of judgment and a new trial, arguing insufficient circumstantial evidence, improper allowance of surprise cross-examination of witnesses, and newly discovered evidence that the Commonwealth's ballistics expert had tampered with test cartridges. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, holding that the evidence of motive, opportunity, a matching eyewitness description, and uncontradicted ballistics testimony was sufficient to support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. It further found no error in the evidentiary ruling and determined that the modification of a test cartridge was a legitimate technique rather than tampering, with any challenge amounting only to impeachment evidence that did not justify a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death action brought by Helen Esposito, widow of Domenick Esposito, against the Philadelphia Transportation Company after her husband was killed when his automobile collided with a streetcar at an industrial highway crossing equipped with automatic warning lights and signs. The trial court granted the company's request for binding instructions and directed a verdict in its favor, which the Supreme Court affirmed after refusing a new trial. The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, showed the motorman may have been negligent but did not establish wanton misconduct, while the deceased's conduct in driving past the flashing red lights and warning signs at high speed without stopping demonstrated contributory negligence that barred recovery as a matter of law under precedents involving the same crossing.

torts & liability

The case involved two police officers from the Borough of Shenandoah who were furloughed in violation of seniority requirements under the Act of May 4, 1927, as amended, and who sought reinstatement and back pay through mandamus actions. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant peremptory writs of mandamus ordering their reinstatement and payment of back salary. The core reasoning was that the statute explicitly provides for hearings before the Civil Service Commission only in cases of suspension, removal, or reduction in rank, but not for furloughs due to economic reasons, and courts cannot add language to the clear statutory text to require such hearings.

labor & employmentprocedure

Antonio Gidaro was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting and killing Michael Matzura on December 25, 1947, following an argument over a car blocking a garage entrance. Gidaro appealed, contending that the trial court erred by admitting daytime photographs of the crime scene and by refusing to instruct the jury that the evidence was insufficient to prove specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the photographs were properly admitted only to illustrate the general location and permanent features, with appropriate limiting instructions given to the jury regarding their timing and purpose. It further held that evidence of the unprovoked shots fired at the victim's back from close range, striking a vital area and causing death by severing the aorta, supported the jury's finding of intent to kill. The judgment and sentence were affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the Commonwealth from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County that excluded four savings accounts totaling $33,606.94 from the estate of Anna T. Dean for purposes of transfer inheritance tax under the Act of June 20, 1919. The accounts stood in the decedent’s name at her death but were claimed by her son and executor, John J. Dean, as his own property; the court below found after hearing that the accounts belonged to him based on family testimony, account records, and other evidence showing the funds were his earnings deposited for safekeeping. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree, holding that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of the decedent’s ownership even though the Commonwealth did not challenge the factual findings themselves. The court distinguished contrary authority and rejected an evidentiary challenge to a family disclaimer letter as properly excluded by the trial court.

taxesproperty

This case was a personal injury action in which the plaintiff sought damages after falling on ice and snow on a sidewalk adjacent to a building in Pittsburgh. The trial court entered a compulsory nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, which the court en banc refused to remove, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The court held that proof of an accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk is insufficient for liability without evidence that the dangerous condition was the actual cause of the fall. The plaintiff's own testimony indicated he began slipping on the crosswalk before reaching the sidewalk and failed to establish that the sidewalk accumulation caused his loss of balance. Under established precedent, the plaintiff must prove both an unreasonable obstruction with notice to the property owner and causation, which was not met here.

torts & liabilityprocedure