Criminal law — Practice — Writ of coram nobis — Alleged facts which petitioner could not have known of at trial — Facts actually determined at trial.
In a proceeding upon a petition for a writ of coram nobis, in which petitioner averred that he had a witness whose testimony if it had been offered at his trial would have prevented his being adjudged guilty; and in which it appeared that the facts alleged by petitioner were not such that they could not have been known by him at the time of trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and that the facts sought to be proved by the new testimony had been actually determined at the trial; it was Held that the order of the court below dismissing the petition should be affirmed.
Submitted November 17, 1958.
OPINION PER CURIAM, December 9, 1958:
The order of the court below dismissing relator's petition for writ of error coram nobis is affirmed on the opinion of Judge GRIFFITHS, as reported in 15 Pa. D. C. 2d 39. See, also, Com. v. Connelly, 172 Pa. Super. 363, 94 A.2d 68; Com. v. Kurus, 371 Pa. 633, 634, 635, 92 A.2d 196.