Opinion
November 11, 1963.
December 12, 1963.
Animals — Testing of cows — Search warrant obtained by agents of Department of Agriculture under Act of July 22, 1913, P.L. 928 — Assault and battery — Evidence — Reopening case — Motion pictures.
1. In an action in trespass for injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiffs as the result of an assault and battery by defendant members of the State Police, in which it appeared that plaintiffs, the owners of a cow, had persistently refused to permit agents of the Department of Agriculture to test her; that the agents of the Department of Agriculture secured a search warrant, under the Act of July 22, 1913, P.L. 928, and defendant State Police were assigned to assist the agent in the search and in the conduct of the necessary tests; that, in the meantime, and without the knowledge of the agents or the police, plaintiffs had secured a veterinarian to conduct the test; that, when the officers arrived at plaintiff's farm, plaintiff showed them an alleged piece of paper bearing the name of the veterinarian and insisted that the officers had no right to conduct the test under the circumstances, but the officers, having in mind plaintiffs' constant refusals and stratagems in the past, proceeded to conduct the test using required restraint upon wife plaintiff; and that the court below, holding that, in the circumstances, defendants were fully justified in discharging their duties, discharged plaintiffs' motion for a new trial; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
2. Where it appeared that wife plaintiff had maintained at trial that she was so disabled by the restraint put upon her by defendants at the time of the tests of the cow that she was unable to perform her usual household chores, asserting that her arm was injured and she was disabled from doing any lifting of any sort; that the trial court permitted defendants to reopen their case and present motion pictures in evidence, showing wife plaintiff in the act of lifting and carrying heavy bags of material; that the officer, who took pictures from a place of concealment, identified the persons and objects shown in the pictures and gave the time and place of their taking; and that defendants' counsel was not aware of the availability of the pictures at the time he rested his case; it was Held that the court below did not err, in the circumstances, in permitting defendants to reopen their case and present the motion pictures in evidence.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 164, April T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 511, in case of Corington Alford and Emma Alford, his wife, v. James R. Bailey et al. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 31 Pa. D. C. 2d 755.
Trespass for assault and battery. Before LAUB, J.
Verdict for defendants and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.
Emma Alford, in propria persona, with her Corrington Alford, in propria persona, for appellants.
No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.
Argued November 11, 1963.
The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge LAUB, for the court below, reported at 31 Pa. D. C. 2d 755.