From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Runco v. DiJoseph

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 16, 1958
142 A.2d 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)

Opinion

March 17, 1958.

April 16, 1958.

Criminal law — Bookmaking — Money found upon defendant's person — Forfeiture as integral part of illegal operation.

Where it appeared that petitioner was convicted of bookmaking; that at the time of his arrest there were found upon his person various sums of money totaling $1,520 and, also, slips indicating recent race bets wherein the bettors had deposited $70 with petitioner; and that the court below found that the money upon petitioner at the time of his arrest had formed an integral part of his illegal gambling operations and dismissed his petition seeking the return of the money seized; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 161, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, April T., 1956, No. 20, in case of James Runco v. Bernard E. DiJoseph, District Attorney of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 11 Pa. D. C. 2d 735.

Proceeding upon petition of plaintiff and rule to show cause why monies seized in a gambling raid should not be returned.

Order entered discharging rule, opinion by CORSON, J. Petitioner appealed.

James R. Caiola, submitted a brief for appellant.

Richard S. Lowe, Assistant District Attorney, with him Randolph A. Warden, Assistant District Attorney, and Bernard E. DiJoseph, District Attorney, for appellee.


Argued March 17, 1958.


The order of the lower court, in effect adjudging forfeit $1,520 taken from the person of appellant after his conviction of bookmaking, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge CORSON, reported in 11 Pa. D. C. 2d 735.


Summaries of

Runco v. DiJoseph

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 16, 1958
142 A.2d 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
Case details for

Runco v. DiJoseph

Case Details

Full title:Runco, Appellant, v. DiJoseph

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 16, 1958

Citations

142 A.2d 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1958)
142 A.2d 27

Citing Cases

Lee v. City of Oakland

[1b] To carry defendant's position to its conclusion would lead to absurdity and injustice. It is true there…