Opinion
March 3, 1924.
May 5, 1924.
Practice, Superior Court — Joint appeals — Exceptions — Assignments of error.
The Superior Court will not consider joint appeals not authorized by the statute.
Questions not raised in the court below will not be reviewed on appeal.
Assignments of error which do not conform to the rules of court or have no relation to the record brought up for review will be ignored.
Appeals, Nos. 5, 6 and 7, February T., 1924, by defendants, from judgments of C.P. Lackawanna Co., Nov. T., 1922, Nos. 414, 415 and 416, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George Andoukitis, L. Bolevich and Anthony Lewitsky.
Before PORTER, HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN and GAWTHROP, JJ. Appeals quashed.
Appeals from summary conviction for violation of Act of July 9, 1919, P.L. 799. Before NEWCOMB, J.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
The court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate. Defendants appealed. Error assigned was, among others, in affirming the judgment of the magistrate.
R.H. Holgate, and with him P.E. Kilcullen, for appellants.
Joseph B. Jenkins, Assistant District Attorney, and with him Paul M. Dzwonchyk, Attorney for the Commissioner of Fisheries, for appellee.
Argued March 3, 1924.
In No. 5 February Term 1924, George Andoukitis — L. Bolevich — Anthony Lewitsky are named as appellants; the same parties are named as appellants in No. 6 February Term, and also in No. 7 February Term. They were summarily convicted of violating the Acts of July 28, 1917, P.L. 1215; July 9, 1919, P.L. 799, and May 16, 1921, P.L. 559, each being convicted of violating the acts in three different particulars. We cannot sustain joint appeals: Com. v. Surety Co., 37 Pa. Super. 167; Idell v. Day, 79 Pa. Super. 215.
Only part of the record has been printed. Among other matters the exceptions filed in the court below to the proceedings before the alderman are not printed. No question can be considered here on appeal that does not appear to have been raised in the court below.
The assignments of error do not conform to our rules; all but one appear to be directed to the action of the alderman; they have no relation to the record brought to us for review.
No. 5 February Term 1924, appeal quashed.
No. 6 February Term 1924, appeal quashed.
No. 7 February Term 1924, appeal quashed.