Volume 295 — Pennsylvania State Reports

<p>The instruction by the court on the effect of testimony tending to prove an alibi was erroneous: Com. v. Andrews, 234 Pa. 597.</p>

The paper is not between the parties to this suit and therefore is not subject to the so-called parol evidence rule: Simons & Sons v. Emery, 254 Pa. 569; Gill’s Est., 268 Pa. 500; Roberts v. Cauffiel, 283 Pa. 64.

The court, in so far as the present issue is concerned, is considering a remedial statute which is “to receive a liberal construction so as to accomplish the legislative purpose: Com. v. Shaleen, 215 Pa. 595; Goldwyn Distributing Corp., 265 Pa. 335. Upon appeal from the decision of the board declining to approve a motion picture, the sole inquiry is whether the board acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and in such a way as to amount to an abuse of discretion.