From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth ex rel. Rook v. Myers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 4, 1961
167 A.2d 274 (Pa. 1961)

Summary

stating " mere variance in testimony, or the fact that a witness may have made contradictory statements, goes to the question of the credibility of the witness"

Summary of this case from Chapman v. Upset Tax Claim Bureau of Wayne Cnty.

Opinion

Submitted November 22, 1960.

January 4, 1961.

Before JONES, C. J., BELL, MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK and EAGEN, JJ.

Appeal, No. 298, Jan. T., 1960, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland Country May T., 1960, No. 361, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Elmer Rook v. David N. Myers, Superintendent. Order affirmed.

Habeas corpus.

Order entered refusing petition, opinion by TROUTMAN, J. Relator appealed.

Elmer L. Rook, appellant, in propria persona.

H. F. Bonno, District Attorney, for appellee.


The order of the court below denying the relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth ex rel. Rook v. Myers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 4, 1961
167 A.2d 274 (Pa. 1961)

stating " mere variance in testimony, or the fact that a witness may have made contradictory statements, goes to the question of the credibility of the witness"

Summary of this case from Chapman v. Upset Tax Claim Bureau of Wayne Cnty.
Case details for

Commonwealth ex rel. Rook v. Myers

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Rook, Appellant, v. Myers

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 4, 1961

Citations

167 A.2d 274 (Pa. 1961)
167 A.2d 274

Citing Cases

Landers v. State

Such allegations, if true, would not entitle the petitioner to habeas corpus relief since they would…

Commonwealth v. Osborne

However, where the testimony is so contradictory and fantastic as to be incredible, the Court has a right to…