The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1877-05-18


the charge Of the Court. Bv reference
there to it will be seen that the credibl-
ity of the witnesses, especially of Kelly,
was submitted to the jury with clu ion
ary instructions fully as strong IA is
warranted Dy the authorities, or rs the
defendants had right to require.
1t is conlended that the evidence of
Kelly was accepted by the jury as true
without corroboration. We advised the
jury not to convict unless that witness
was corroborated in material matters
connecting the defendants with the
offence. Whether he was corroborated
was for the jury to determine; on that
subject they had the testimony of 5. G..
Harris who saw Hester on the morning
of the murder with seven or eight men
at or near the place where Kelly testifies
the conspirators were at that time on
their way to meet their victim, they
had the evidence of the time OF the
arrival of Hester at home that morning
corresponding with Kelly's testimony
as to the tine of his leaving the party
for home.
They had evidence as to the number
of men at the scene of the murder
corresponding with Kelly's testimony
as to the number after Hester and Skiv-
erton had left them on the road they
had evidence that Hester was at Ash.
land where Kally says the plan of the
murder was concocted the night before
that Tully and McHugh were absent
from their work on the d,y { the muir
der,--that on the morning aft arrests
were made Of Donohue and Duffy for
this murder, McHugh, Kelly, Tally and
others named by Kelly as going to Hes
ter'sand informing him OF these arrests,
were seen by Mr.. Morrison going back
way towards and near to Hester's house,
that Hester fed that night and Nc
Hugh, Kelly ard Tally the next day
that Tuily changed his name to oBrowl
and denied bsing IN this part Of the
country when the murder WAS commit.
ted and that McHugh continued absent
until his arrest years afterward.
The jury also had before them the
anonymous letter written by Hester
from Laselh, Ill.,, among other things
inquiring Of his family "if il was sus
pected what route he had takenn--they
had also the evidence of Lewis s. Parr
as to admissions by Hester in a CONVEX
sation with Douohue in the jall-and
they have found that the al,bis set up
by all the defendants are false. Without
discussing the matter of corrobo ration
further, it is enough to say that there
were facts ard circumstances testified
to by competent, and apparently credi-
hle witnesses; which, in material mat
ters corroborate the testimony of Kelly.
The evidence on the shbjsct Of alibi
and some other points was contradictory
but we cannot say that the jury ought
to have disbelieved the witnesses for
the Commonwealth.
The second branch of the seventh
reason was not pressed by counsel on
on the argument; but as it still stands
upon the record, and alleges that the
Court should have stricken out the
evidence of E. r. Ikeler, it is proper to
consider it.
On cross.examinationL Lewis S. Parr,
witness for the Commonwealth stated
that he had not, until lately, communi-
Gated important facts of which he OBJ
tanned knowledge in 1869, consisting of
admissions of guilt by one of the
defendants, willie the witness was a
police officer having him under his
charge for this murder. Mr.. Ikeler was
admitted to testify that he was District
Attorney at that time and that Parr
then communicated to him the facts to
which he now testihes.
In the case of COmth. vs.. Wilson, /
Giey. 337, the Supreme Court of Massa-
chusetts, in case precisely similar in
its facts on this point, held the corrob-
Grating evidence competent, "a witness
for the Common wealth had testified to
important facts against the defendant.
On cross examination he was asked,
when he first communicated what he
had testihed.to which he replied "about
six weeks ago." 1t was permitted to be
shown that he had communicated the
same facts to other persons, at or about
tho time Of the occurrence, and it was
said by Shaw, c. j.. THE rule exclud-
ing such testimony is confined to the
examination in chief, and does not ap-
ply to case where the other party has
sought to impeach the witness on cross
examination. The purpose of the cross
examination in this particular having
been to impeach the witness the evil
dence is admitted.
And again in the same Court 1t was
held, per Bigelow j. that where an at
tempt is made to impeach the credit OF
a witness by showing that he had with.
held or concealed the fact to which be
now testifes, 1t is competent to show,
that the witness at an early day, as soon
as disclosure could reasonably have
been made, did disclose the facts tc
which he has testified. Comth. vs.. Jen-
kins, 10 Grey, 4s9.
A witness can not be allowed for tht
purpose of strengthening his testimony
on his examination in chief, to stat,
that he had previously communicated
to others the same facts. but, if i
should become material fact that tn,
witness declared his knowledge to oths
persons, such persons may be called t
the fact. Daniel Il Dushore VS.. Th,
Merchants Insurance Co. II Metcal
l99.
So where witness is contradicted o
his character impeached evidence ma
be given Of what he swore on a forme
trial 10 order to corrOborate his testi
mony. Henderson vs.. Jones 10 S & !
1922. Cooke W. Curtis Harr, II Johl
| Md Rep 93. Connecticut vs.. Wolf
/