Practice — New trial — Party acting as own counsel — Failure of trial judge to instruct in trial procedure.
In this case, in which it appeared that plaintiffs, who had acted as their own counsel at the trial in the court below, raised on appeal the single question whether they were entitled to a new trial because the trial judge had failed to instruct them in the basic essentials of trial procedure, including the calling and examination of witnesses; and that this question was not raised in the motion for new trial in the court below; it was Held, in the circumstances, that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
Argued April 12, 1957.
OPINION PER CURIAM, June 11, 1957:
Plaintiffs, who have appealed from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, acted as their own counsel at the trial in the court below. They raise a single question on these appeals, to wit, whether they are entitled to a new trial "because the trial judge failed to instruct . . . [them] in the basic essentials of trial procedure, including the calling and examination of witnesses." The question was admittedly not raised in the motion for new trial in the court below. See Sherwood v. Elgart, 383 Pa. 110, 115, 117 A.2d 899. We find no compelling reason why the matter should be reviewed on appeal. Cf. General Building Contractors' Association v. Local Union No. 542, 370 Pa. 73, 79, 87 A.2d 250. The trial judge was not obliged to act as counsel for plaintiffs as they in effect contend. See Lombardi v. Citizens National Trust Savings Bank of Los Angeles, 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 289 P.2d 823, 824. Nevertheless the trial judge took every precaution to protect their interests, and attempted to guide them at every stage of the proceedings.
OPINION PER CURIAM, June 11, 1957:
Judgment of the court below is affirmed.