The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-01-30
THIRD EDITION
The TWITCHELL CASE.
CHE OPINION OF THE COURT.
SENTENCE OF DEATH.

the prisoner had sat quietly listening to the
charge Of the Court, and had offered NO objeo-
ton to 1t; in fact. they had.even withdrawn sug-
gestlons that they had made, and that the
Court was about to answer. but now, when the
time for correcting anything that was wrong
before the jury had passed. they attacked the
charge and endeavored TO make its supposed
errors ground for a new trial, Entering upon
the details, his Honor said:--
Commonwealth VS.. George g. Twitohsll, Jr.-Mo-
BHEwsTEa. JodEe.-Thls is ia motion for new
support o. this application They have been argued
fol conside ssloa. We shAll endeavor to dispose of
The rst stcons and third reasons refer 20 oerta,n
Hesea 10 nave To @1Se I'd, by the Dsrc
WebaSe not been Referred 10 any "" eSse In which
Isi srsn!sa slmllss reasons SiGn Il
10 but s y nTS FsPly 70 O. s he ed
objection was msde at the time and complaint eau
Ihe reasons, IRON four to twelve inclusive. eou.
plain Of the charge !t might be sufficient anawer
6oGy OF the charge. the Court Slated that oersain
points ss9 Seen 5y lne counsel for
one OF the counsel the defendant thsreupon ress
S ss@' n
eGd an as to shS the S M asd 10
upon Two points These were suggested and the Jury
ofIhtse part cnlaIs. - "-- -'AUeN IN ~i'
n0 s Sl 5GSpsp
of discretion to hold party to his open indorse-
aware Of any prncpe wcs soga sse not
py pSc sSs az S % S%
rectops which he prays may be made.
said slated Ihs whole 9s,TuetiOn IS @ouideG @ cd
20 Of as bs @sR aage ri. CRITICISM Hp9a lis
called an atterthousht.
snbse queDtly allowed in any case civil or crminal;
aSe NO JnSge S9ud ner such I certify
This; This h0weSer !, but M an additional reason for
brgued in this behalf Anxious to correct any pos
sble error which be discovered in this record we
have amined the charge with careful scrutiny
are all ed that there was no injustice to the dc
Complaint is m ade to the instructions upon ths
law The GsenS!6ES counsel had Eepssteay stated
vled with the eComuonwesths oificers 10 dsnouneng
not thereis not now-any question as degrees
Nor Could there well be any disputation on this
point. There was evidence, no pretense Of hot
sSSSg could this crime else
than murder In the first oegree. To the present
nenI nothing has been even suggested In reduction
Of the grade Of the oienss nor Is t Gontendod that
mems 70 me Jury were misrepoTted IN the charge:
This is done lruthtuly there can be psssible
Gon1t vas in exact conformity to the fact The @ JarS
were informed ofthe opinions Of the Court as 70
Been al sHa seaT sas
anush The for h ddsy
hsd denounSed this Gense as wtn de-
the jury to oct upon no concession.
Tne sngGaGs upon 5,s this point was most explicit
tits proper. however, thai in case Of 50 much
THAI pT ecedt this was bit repetition OF whas co1
Wss not the slightest inimS ION from the court Of
any opinion upon the subject .,.,,- - r.. =.
aSn3uncs the crime as brutal sso6,SlG0dsd GO pEe%s,
5p 20 urS P HS ho 0i
dsred an unohendiDg won au for the purpose of ob.
ne s mSaiy ae @ 20 h It sase
net ne ns wIn ps s% 0 aSS b no.
nsthing for anted buLto listen to The
Suires The jury il they hnd psrSon guilty to aseer.
lam in thir verdict whehsrt be murder Of the rSt
Tne Whole Section. including the We rds Just noted,
was read. Definitions were tnen glVeR;-
First Of murder generally. -
| SseOpd. OF murder In the frat degree,
here the charge as 20 the lay ave orr Of the os1e s
There was no a @ 1S was
the absence Of al advice ss Inc dsTFee M m
supreme Court have recently declared to be "entFey
Rhodes az We & sSsS y. but Too neither
wealth Ptts6uTg Legas has@gGnco, @ Of NOyemSsr %
n!sf I'll Sss soa defendant guilty your verdict
must stRte guilty Of murder ia tue first degree"
In Lane vs; Commonwealth the Judge Instructed
There Is no middle course he ohe defendant
rst be convicted Of murder in the first degree, or
These directions were condemned in learned opi.
The latter case the CSief justice after sxposins tn'
lit is only with the ques,ions OF law raised that VIC
have dealt and only in the particular discussed dc
we see snyhng TO be found fault with nor are we e
Is eP!iTely proper Of Judges freely advisng n5es .
Mhlc3 sHe facts seem 10 point always eayIn:
and IespGns6illty OF hnding the degree If they CON
/ In Fitzpatrick VS.; Comm q Casey, .sD my learned
poIize nor squivocA.e in cause of this magnitude
SII Hss OF he II hs Oens, fS% Sf t S
| nrian 10 oh In 10
dence that the act was committed in the heat o
Q blood or upon sudden quarrel, or with coOines
n This as msde the subject OF exception. But tn
supreme Court said, per strong, !. p 2Sl, "A uag
evidence an 1t may sometimes be his duty DO II
yet DOT so 10 Withdraw II from the considerable
In Con-. vs Green q Ash. SiOl, King, p. j.. in
charge which really treatise upon thlS subject
' used this emphatic c.languaIe;-"UpOn the HupIOs
lion assumed. we OF oplnion tnat the prisoner
der. = ProvocR ion Ia this ease is ouS OF th
NIH'ttb NIH CaTbcart VS.. Common wealth q W.T.. II0 th
Judge In charging the jsry stated the positions Tee
upon by the Commonwealth "a reason ior iaiel
= mark Will The words Again ~ i9 urged by the Con
ETC the Ts5 S5 SgGseG inny of the een
: ''Ps an Inference OF macs and design 10 kll.'
z But the Supreme Court affirmed the correctneess
. AS eviaer ce OF premeaitation here. we have II
= kitchen DC carried stairs into the dlniE g-roo
; wound inflicted upon the part of lne skull know
to be The weak est-the mortal blow gv ven upon r
the hand CaCcording 10 the last R.gumen! suomtle
us 6esAi Of The dSSnHnp fsdy S INV w gh "
The filth reason complains ths' ina snsSsS ss of Il
eI I6oTp wa %ss oa nGs sS'sS to Whether tue 11ockl
= of the door could be heard IL ls suiuc,on. w sc
Toned aionR With The other witnesses upon u
point and he whole testimony on TINS Drahcn " ',
i up ana referred to Inc Jury with the dlreotlo %
!. oeyei9ily consider ali th@I h@u pSsn SSu "'' y