Opinion
April 11, 1972.
June 15, 1972.
Practice — Transcription of testimony — Support proceeding — Act of May 1, 1907, P.L. 135, § 2, as amended.
In this case, in which it appeared that the court below, in violation of the Act of May 1, 1907, P.L. 135, § 2, as amended, had refused the request of counsel for the defendant that the testimony of the hearing be transcribed, it was Held that a new support hearing, stenographically reported, was necessary.
Argued April 11, 1972.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.
Appeal, No. 534, April T., 1971, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Jan. T., 1963, No. 74, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George S. Jaynes. Remanded for new hearing.
Nonsupport. Before McCORMICK, J.
Order entered continuing order in the amount of $150.00, per month, for support of minor child. Defendant, father, appealed.
Zeno Fritz, for appellant.
Henry A. Martin, Assistant District Attorney, with him John N. Scales, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
A new support hearing, stenographically reported, is necessary because the court below in violation of the Act of May 1, 1907, P.L. 135, § 2, as amended, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 1802, had refused the request of counsel for the defendant-appellant that the testimony of the hearing be transcribed. Commonwealth ex rel. Hollinger v. Shaeffer, 196 Pa. Super. 301, 175 A.2d 114 (1961).
Remanded for a new hearing.