Criminal law — Unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor — Aiding and abetting in the possession of intoxicating liquor — Act of March 27, 1923, P.L. 34.
In the trial of an indictment, charging defendant with possessing intoxicating liquor in violation of the Act of March 27, 1923, P.L. 34, a conviction will be sustained, where the evidence justified a finding that defendant was in possession and control of liquor found in the bar-room or aided, assisted and abetted the lessee of the barroom in the possession and control of the beverage.
New trial — After-discovered evidence — Cumulative evidence — Necessity of averment that evidence could not have been obtained at the trial.
A motion for a new trial, on the ground of after-discovered evidence, is properly refused, where the alleged after-discovered evidence is merely cumulative and there is no averment, proof or offer to prove that it could not have been obtained at the trial by the use of reasonable diligence.
Argued December 10, 1928.
PER CURIAM, December 11, 1928:
Defendant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in violation of the Act of March 27, 1923, P.L. 34. He appeals and here asserts that the evidence was insufficient to convict. We affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below.