Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-10-11
COYLE GETS NEWTRIAL
TPE MURDER OPPOSITE MARIETTA.


TPE MURDER OPPOSITE MARIETTA.
Errors Found by tho Supreme Court IN
Judge Wicke's Charge-The Differ
enco Between i" Fairly''
and - Clearly"
Through the use Of the word clearly,
instead Of the word fairly, John Coyle, jr.,
convicted Of murder.in the first degree
for shooting Emily Myers, of York county,
has been granted new trial in an Opin-
ion filed by Judge Mercur. OF the supreme
court now sitting a, Pittsburgh. Coyle is
twenty-six years of age. He lived with
Sus4uehanna river, nearly opposite Ma
rietta, in Lancaster county. Emily Myers
his unfortunate victim, was an orphan
girl, employed as domestic in the Coyle
household, aud lived with the family. On
the morning of May 30 last, Mrs. COyle
called Emily to get up and milk the COWS.
The young woman repaired to the barn
and proceeded to perform her daily work.
Young COyle seems to have heard the call
Of his mother, and he stealthily followed
tho girl, and, meeting her in the barn, shot
her dead.
The mother heard reports from pistol,
and going down stairs, called for Emily,
but was acc"sted by her sou, who told her
that she needn't call, as Emily was dead.
lie told his mother that he had shot the
girl aud then himtelf, and that 10 was
going to die. lie said Emily had ruined
him and set him crazy. She had prom
iscd to marry him, aud he went out to SEQ
if her word was good. When be went up
to her she told him no, she wouldn't have
him, nor any other man, and then he said
81 will shoot y"u, for no other man shall
have you.' Sl.o dared him to do it, and,
throwing licrSei; !E.:!s, said, rs tho :nur
dcrcr afterwards alleged, Shoot me right
here ; shoot INC quick" The young
woman was instantly killed COyle then
turned tho revolver on himself and shot
twice, although he did not do much dam
age, excepting to cause the blood to flow.
Ile imm.uiateIy fled to his bed, from which
two or three hours afterwartl, he was
pulled out and taken to Jail.
On the trial it was admitted that COylc
had killed tho yong girl. The defense
was that COyic was insane at tho time OF
the killing 1t Was attempted to be shown
that he was Of feeble niud, subjected to
fits and had previously attempted to shoot
himself, and on another occasion had
taken arsenic, which had been purchased
to kill rats. Every possible effort was
made to prove him insane. Although the
jury roun,l him guilty without much dc
liberation, an appeal was taken to the
supreme sourt, four specifications Of error
to the judges charge being assigned. The
appeal was argued in Philadelphia aud
held under advisement. In dispOsing Of
the first specification Of error taken to the
charge Of Judge Wickes, who said to the
jury that the mania or insanity Of COyle
Ouah ht to have beeu shown to have been
filbitual or at lest to have cvinced itself
in more than single instance.
In 4 few interesting words Judge Mer-
cur sustains tho lower court by saying
"the attempted suicide of itself is not
evidence Of the fact Of the insanity of the
prisoner, and it raises no legal presump>
tiOn thereof. But it may be considered
by the jury that all the other facts are
circumstances bearing on the question OF
insanity. Suicide may or may not be evil
dence of insanity. Sometimes it may be
evidence of a wicked ami depraved heart,
familiar with crime. At other times it
may he evidence of dependency and dis
couragement, but perhaps more frequently
it is Of cowardice or lack Of courage to
face ignominy and public disgrace Or to
submit to the punishment likely to be i'm
posed on him."
The third assignment of erro. was to
that portion of Judge Wicke's charge, in
which he said, "The law OF the state
is that when the killing is admitted and
insanity or want of legal responsibility is
all - 80 &1,n l,,k al hn
defendant to satisfy the jury that insanity
actually existed at the time of the act, and
doubt as to such insanity will not satisfy
the jury in acquitting on that ground.
The law presumes sanity when all act is
done, and that presumption can only be
ovarthrown by clearly prepondcratinG evi-
dence." Concerning this assignment the
opinion of Judge Mercu: says that it is all
correct and in strict conformity with the
law excepting the last sentence. A doubt,
he says,is not sufficient to cause an acquit,
tai 1t must be satisfactorily proved.
The lower court was evidently misled
by the authorities in charging in the
words of the last sentence mentioned. 1t
had gone too far The language used de-
manded a higher degree Of proof than the
law requires. 1t may be satisfactorily
proved by evidence which tHirly prepon.
derated. To require it to "clearly pre-
ponderate -" is practically saying it must
be proved beyond all doubt or uncertainty.
1t is not necessary that the evidence be so
conclusive rs to remove all doubt when
one is on trial for his life. Care must be
taken that he receives from the court that
due protection which the law has wisely
thrown around him. The jury should
have been charged that the evidence, If it
fairly preponlerated, would have been
sufficient. 1t was upon this exception that
COyle was granted = ncw trial.
THE MlLLEKS' CONVENTION.