The Ebensburg Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1865-1871, 1866-04-12

/ Improperly proved. Both pardons were
sufficiently pro7ed to justify the Courts
admission of the witness. And we think
there was nothing in the testimony of this
witness on which to ground the 7th and
9Th assignments Of error He was per-
mitted to explain the situation and rela-
tloG Of the cells, and the arrangements
made OF prisoners, to show what opportu-
mites he possessed of acquiring knowledge
of the facts he detailed. And when he
was recalled, he was permitted to detail
what occurred when Messrs. Noon and
Johnston visited him in his cell, that he
showed them how communications between
adjoining cells could be made, and he was
permitted also to testify that no promise
OF pardon or other inducement had been
held out to him to testify IN this case
All this was objected to, because it tended
to cOrroborate the witness when no at
tempt had been made TO impeach him, and
the question about a pardon compelled
the witness to discredit himself or commit
perjury if such promise had been held out
Though not formally impeached, this
witness, as a pardoned criminal, testified
necessarily Under circumstances that tend
ed strongly to discredit him. The jury
would inevitably regard his testimony
with suspicion. 1t was very proper, there
| fore, to corroborate him, and surely if he
could demonstrate to his visitors that
communication between cells was possible,
he had right to prove the fact in cor
roboratlon of his statement that such COM
munlcation had actually taken place. And
he was entitled also to the fact that no
indueement had been held out to him to
testify against the defendants. Those
were rights of the witness, aud he was in
circumstances to justify his claim of them,
and the Courts concession of them.
The conversations of prisoners among
themselves about "points' to be made
when they got out, is not the most salts
factory kind of evidence, especially when
proved by only one of their number, par
doned for the purpose of being made a
witness; but the oredibility of this witness
was fairly submitted to the jury, and
there were many circumstances in proof
| by other witnesses that tended strongly
to corroborate him. True, his testimony
was most damaging to the defendants, if
believed, but the Commonwealth was en-
titled TO lay it before the jury, aud it is
not for Us TO doubt that the jury scanned
it closely, and gave 1t no more weight than
was due to it.
The 9th error is founded on the decla-
ration of Mary SGpoliski, made to her
parents the evening of the murder. This
little girl had been sent out at MIG ghtfall to
fetch home the cows, and when she came
home, she told her father what she saw and
heard, and that she thought the men she
saw at Polly PauPs were not the right
kind of persons.
In itself considered, this evidence was
of little Importance, for it did not lead
even TO an early discovery OF the murder.
Nobody seems to have attended TO the
girls story, and it might be considered
Irrelevant and harmless evidence if sub
seauent discoveries had not shown that
these defendants were prowling about the
| ghoorhood, and were the very two men
the witness saw at Miss Paups. The fact
that she saw men there, and heard sounds
of distress, was competent and relevant,
and it was rendered no less so by the ad-
ditional fact that she told it to her parents
directly after she returned home. This
circumstance she had right to refer to,
as refreshing her memory. And what
her parents said in reply, was also cir
cumstance to refresh her memory. The
damaging part of this evidence does not
consist IN the narrative that burst from
the lips of this little girl on her return
home, much less in the responses of the
parents, but it consists in the facts them
selves, ard to which she swore on the
trial, and which interwove themselves with
facts furnished by other witnesses, IN such
a manner as to form what the jury consid-
cred web of guilt. The facts, that is,
what she saw and heard, are not objected
| to as improper evideG &c, but only her re-
lation of the facts to her parents, and their
replies. Ordinarily, declarations of third
parties in the absence of the accused are
not evidence, but these declarations were
| so connected with THE circumstances as to
become part Of them-or If they cannot
be so considered, they were immaterial
and harmless, and therefore afford no
| ground for reversing.
The 10th assignment relates to the ad-
ministration accoun. of the estate of the
deceased. 1t was public record, and, We
think, properly admitted. 1t is usual to
prove the circumstances of the decedent's 8
estate, where the murder was committed
| Zucri cduSd, and the administration account
is the best possible evidence of what per-
sonal estate was possessed. If it failed to
show a personal estate which other evil
! dence proved to have belonged to the de-
ceased, and the Commonwealth was thus
enabled to furnish the jury with an inter-
ence of robbery, it was an inference to
which the Commonwealth was entitled