Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919 Excerpt:... imperative than that of the judge." Rut improper remarks must in some way be placed upon the record, so that they can be properly considered and reviewed: Holden v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 169 Pa., 1. In Commonwealth v. Weber, 167 Pa., 153, Mr. Justice Dean said: "No judge can be expected to anticipate the line of argument counsel will adopt and caution him against improper speech: a judge may and often does of his own motion stop counsel in improper statements and administer rebuke. But he may not give close attention to all that counsel say when addressing the jury, nor is he required to; that is the duty of opposing counsel, and if the argument be objectionable, the objection should at once be made to the Court, then the words can be taken down by the official reporter and be made the subject of ruling by the Court and review here;" and in Commonwealth v. Windish, 176 Pa.. 167. the Court stated that "the record does not indicate that the attention of the learned trial judge was drawn to the opening address of the district attorney while it was being delivered or in any other manner than by this motion to withdraw a juror made at some time before verdict." In Brown v. Central Pennsylvania Traction Co., 237 Pa., 324, it was held that "it is not sufficient, if counsel desires to insist upon the withdrawal of a juror, to simply note an objection. Counsel should direct the Court's attention particularly to the objectionable matter, insist upon his rights, and, if refused, secure an exception." I cannot tell whether the reporter placed all or any part of the discussion between counsel upon his notes, for the notes, as I have stated, have not been transcribed. The agreement to this effect indicates that there is nothing therei...