
    Commonwealth v. Bishop, Appellant.
    
      Criminal law — Arrest of judgment — New trial — Appeals.
    Where, after a verdict of guilty in a criminal prosecution, the court grants a new trial, but refuses to arrest the judgment, the granting of a new trial sets aside the verdict, and the proceedings in arrest of judgment fall with it. There is therefore no basis for an appeal by the defendant from the order refusing to arrest the judgment.
    Argued March 13, 1918.
    Appeal, No. 69, Oct. T., 1918, by defendant, from order of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Oct. T., 1917, No. 302, refusing to arrest judgment in case of Commonwealth v. James Bishop.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Motion in arrest of judgment.
    
      Error assigned was order refusing to arrest the judgment.
    
      Charles C. Gartling, for appellant.
    
      Chas. E. Fox, Asst. Dist. Attorney, with him George A. Welsh, Asst. Dist. Attorney, and Samuel P. Rotan, District Attorney, for appellee.
    April 22, 1918:
   Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The defendant, after a verdict of guilty, moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. The court refused to arrest the judgment but granted a new trial. This set aside the verdict, and the proceedings in arrest of judgment fell with it. There is nothing from which to appeal: Lance v. Bonnell, 105 Pa. 46.

The appeal is quashed.  