Commonwealth v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan

Full title: Commonwealth, Appellant v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan (Stoner)

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 17, 1964

198 A.2d 414 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1964)

198 A.2d 414

Opinion

December 11, 1963.

March 17, 1964.

Criminal Law — Liquor law — Unlawful transportation of liquor — Forfeiture of vehicles — Discretion of quarter sessions court — Liquor Code.

1. Under the amendment of April 20, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1508, to § 602(e) of the Liquor Code, the forfeiture of a vehicle used to transport liquor in violation of the Code is subject to the discretion of the quarter sessions court.

2. In these cases, in which it appeared that the lower court dismissed the petitions to forfeit after the Commonwealth presented its case and without hearing the reputed owner or intervenor, it was Held, upon consideration of the Commonwealth's evidence concerning the nature of the violation, that the court below did not abuse its discretion in refusing to forfeit the vehicles.

Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.

Appeals, No. 294, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, June T., 1963, No. 3, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. One 1956 Oldsmobile Sedan (Oliver O. Stoner); and No. 296, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, June T., 1963, No. 4, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. One 1956 Lincoln Sedan (William S. Diggs). Orders affirmed.

Proceedings upon petitions of Commonwealth for forfeiture of motor vehicles. Before WATERS, J.

Orders entered dismissing petitions. Commonwealth appealed.

J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, with him I. Harry Checchio, Special Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Shannon, Assistant Attorney General, and Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellees.

Argued December 11, 1963.

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J., March 17, 1964:

These two appeals were taken by the Commonwealth from the dismissal by the lower court of petitions for forfeiture of automobiles filed pursuant to Article VI of the Liquor Code of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P. S. § 6-601 et seq.

The automobiles had been used to transport liquor in violation of the Liquor Code. For a time the forfeiture of an automobile in a case like this was mandatory, but since the amendment of April 20, 1956, P.L. (1955) 1508, to section 602(e) of the Liquor Code, 47 P. S. § 6-602 (e), the forfeiture is subject to the discretion of the quarter sessions court. Commonwealth v. One 1957 Chevrolet Sedan, 191 Pa. Super. 179, 182, 183, 155 A.2d 438 (1959).

In the cases before us, the lower court dismissed the petitions to forfeit after the Commonwealth presented its case and without hearing the reputed owner or intervenor. The facts could have been more fully developed, but from the Commonwealth's evidence concerning the nature of the violation, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in refusing to forfeit the vehicles. Commonwealth v. One 1959 Chevrolet Impala Coupe (Thomas), 201 Pa. Super. 145, 149, 150, 191 A.2d 717 (1963). All the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was heard, so it has no standing to complain that the reputed owner and intervenor were not heard. If they had been heard and their evidence had supported their pleadings, the court would have had additional reasons to dismiss the Commonwealth's petitions.

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J., March 17, 1964:

Orders affirmed.