The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-06-04

ninth and tenth specifications do not
require elaborate discussion. 1t Is suf-
ficient to say of the fifth and sixth that
the offer made for the purpose of con-
tradicting Mrs. Kramer related to i'm
material matter and was based on an
assumption not warranted by her testi-
mony. The instructions in regard to
the effect of the defendants flight from
the scene of the murder, was consid-
cred on the whole unobjectionable, and
so We're the instructions concerning the
evidence OF his alleged insanity. 1t Is
not claimed that the murder of Maria
Kerzec was committed by means of
poison, or by lying In wait, or in the
perpetration of or attempt to perpe-
trate any arson, rape, robbery or burg
larry. The jury were not required to
consider a murder so perpetrated. and
they were substantially so instructed
in the language of Justice Agnew In
Commonwealth v. Drum, 5S Pa, 16. We
do not assent to the claim that the in
struction was misleading.
The defendant has no cause to COM
plain of the answer to his eighth point.
The point was misleading and not a
fair or correct statement OF the law
applicable to the defense of insanity.
1t ignored the presumption of sanity
and cast on the commonwealth the bur-
den of showing by affirmative evidence,
which excluded doubt, that the defend
ant was not insane when the homicide
was committed. Insanity is an inde-
pendent defense. and the decisions of
this court say that he who sets 1t up
must show the existence of 1t by fairly
prcponderating evidence; Ortwein V.
Commonwealth, rs Pa. 42l: Lynch V.
Commonwealth, II Pa. 2O9; Brown V.
Commonwealth. rs Pa, 1913; Myers V.
Commonwealth, SO Pa, 13l; and Pan
nell V. Commonwealth. Sc Pa, 100.
There Was Direct Evidence.
We see no error in the rulings or ac-
tion complained of in the eleventh and
twelfth specifications. There was di-
rect as well as circumstantial evil
dence that the murder was "wilful. de-
liberate and premeditated," and there
was nothing said or done in relation to
the jury's request I'm respect to the
reading of the testimony which fur
nishes any ground for reversal or ad
verse criticism.
We are unable to find in the excerpt
from the charge, which Is the sub
ject of the thirteenth specification. any
thing that could possibly prejudice the
There was no exception to the ad-
mission of Bergers testimony. but
there was an exception to the denial of
the motion to strike 1t out. The reason
assigned for the motion did not accord
with the facts as shown by the evi-
eflce. Cummings testified distinctly
that he warned the defendant that any
statement he might make concerning
the murder would be used against him,
and that he need not say anything
about it unless he desired to do so.
The statements made by the defend
ant appear to have been voluntary, and
We cannot say they were misunder-
stood or misinterpreted by the wit
nesses who testified to them. We there
fore see no valid reason for rejecting
the evidence of them. Upon this re-
view of the case we conclude that It
was fairly tried and that all the spe-
cifications of error must be overruled.
The judgment is affirmed, and it Is
ordered that the record be remitted for
the purpose of carrying the sentence
into execution.