DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 318
Citation Numbers: 177 Pa. Super. 527, 111 A.2d 173, 1955 Pa. Super. LEXIS 781
Judges: Ervin, Gunther, Hirt, Rhodes, Ross, Woodsidb, Wright
Filed Date: 1/14/1955
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Opinion by
The defendant was indicted under the Liquor Code for unlawful possession of alcoholic liquor. Pursuant to §494 of The Liquor Code, 47 PS §4-494, which provides for a jail sentence for second offenders, the indictment included an averment of prior conviction of a similar, offense. The defendant was tried by a judge without a jury, was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine and serve three months in. prison. He has appealed alleging error in the admission of proof of the prior offense.
Defendant overlooks the fact that the original indictment offered into evidence bore the official seal of the court and as such carried a presumption of legitimacy. Com. v. Snowden, 1 Brewster 218. The general rule, as stated in Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Edition, §2161, is that: “So far as a particular seal or signature is held to admit a document, the purporting impression of a specific seal or signature evidences the document as genuinely executed by the purporting person, and his official character is assumed without evidence.” As to custody, it is true, as defendant points out, that normally an original document would be proven by the official custodian thereof. If some other person offers the original document, “he must clearly know and show that its place of origin was the proper one”: Wigmore on Evidence, §2158. The purpose of the latter rule is to insure that private persons with no official capacity are not given full power to prove alleged original public papers. Here, however, the witness was an official of the Court of Common Pleas, obviously familiar with the procedures obtaining. He testified that he received the indictment from the official custodian thereof. The danger inherent in permitting private persons to prove original public papers is absent here. Defendant’s objection is of a purely technical nature, since the trial took place in City Hall, Phila
Judgment of sentence affirmed and it is ordered .that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be called and that he be committed until he has complied with his sentence or any part of it not performed at the time this appeal was made a shpersedeas.