The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-06-04
OPINION IN Beck Case
1t Has Been Received Along With
Records Of the Case.
WHAT JUDGE MCOLLUM SAYS
Docs Not Think That Errors We're Com.
mittcd by the Court Below In Dispos.
ing OF the Case Remittitur win
BE Certified TO Governor.

Clerk of the Courts John II. Thomas
yesterday received the remittitur from
Prothonctary Lewis 5. Green, of the
supreme court. setting forth that that
tribunal had affirmed the Judgment and
sentence of the Lackawanna county
courts in the matter of the conviction
of Frank Beck for the murder of his
sweetheart Marie Kerzic. at Olyphant.
on Oct. 8. 1894. Within u few days the
clerk of the courts will send certified
copy of the remittitur to Governor
Hastings, who within sixty days there
after is required to fix the day for exc
cution.
Accompanying the remittitur were all
the records in the case and certified
copy of the opinion of the court, which
was written by Justice McCollum,
1t was furnished at the request OF
District Attorney John Il. Jones. The
opinion is as follows:
Opinion Of Justice Mc cColluin.
Frank Berchine. otherwise known as
Frank Beck, is under sentence OF
death of Maria Kerzec, at Olyphant,
Lackawanna county, on Oct. last. and
the record of his trial and conviction Is
before us for review. We have care
fully examined and studied the testi-
mony and while we do not deem 1t nee
essary to analyze or discuss II I'm this
opinion. we unhesitatingly say that his
conviction of murder of the first degree
was fully warranted by 1t. 1t plainly
shows that the homicide was conse-
uuence of the refusal of the deceased to
become his wife. Whether 1t was the
result of an attempt by him to commit
suicide. of premeditated purpose to
murder her, or of the unconscious act
of a madman, were questions for the
jury upon the evidence under proper in
structions from the court.
There are sixteen specifications of err
ror filed in the case, and we will con-
slider them in their order 1t is conced-
ed by the learned counsel for the de-
fendant that there is nothing upon the
record on which to base the first speci-
fication, and this concession, confirmed
by an inspection of the record is. tech
nically speaking. a sufficient answer to
1t. As nothing short of an abuse of the
discretion the trial court has in passing
upon a motion of this character would
justify our Intervention, and as 1t does
not appear that this discretion was
abused in the case before us, the speci-
tication must be overruled.
As to the Second Specification.
There is nothing in the offer which
forms the subject of the second speci-
fication that raises any doubt concern
ing the correctness of the ruling upon
it, except the portion OF 1t which relates
to the alleged continent of the de-
fendant in an insane asylum in Aus
tria, and the exclusion of this ap-
peared to US on first view as error
which might authorize and perhaps call
for a reversal of the judgment. The
technical ansyer to this view is that
where an offer blends irrelevant and in
admissible matters with matter rele-
want and admissible, and 1t is made
and rejected as a whole, the rejection
of it is not error; Sennett V. Johnston,
Q Pa, 335, and Wharton VS.. Douglass
rs Pa, 273. But in deciding the ques-
ton raised by the specification we
shall not take into consideration the
rule supported by the cases cited.
These were civil cases, and if the rule
stated in them is applicable to, it ought
not to be summoned to sustain, a rul-
ing prejudical to the interests of a
defendant on trial for murder
The specification, however, fails to
disclose the ruling Immediately fol-
lowing the one in question, and under
which the defendant was allowed to
prove all material and admissible mat
ters contained in the preceding offer.
together with his acts, declarations and
conduct while in Austria, and in this
country, tending to show that he was
insane when the homicide was commit
ted. This ruling rendered the ruling
complained OF in the second specifica-
tion harmless and without effect upon
the defendants rights. even though 1t
be conceded there was error in It's eX-
clusion of that part of the offer relating
to his confinment in an asylum. Jo-
seph Petrocious, John Karocious and
Anthony KrantZ, who were his neigh
bors in Austria and whose acquaint-
ance with him dates from the period of
his childhood, testified to having seen
him in hospital at Liebeg, five years
ago. and to his acts and declarations
there. That their testimony did not
fully sustain the offer may be attribut-
able to their want Of knowledge or
recollection Of the matters to which
their attention was called, but II Is not
chargeable to any ruling Of the court.
Could Not Affect Dcci sion OF Case.
The rulings complained OF in the
third and fourth specifications of error
were not excepted to in the trial court
and are not, under well-settled rules.
renewable here. Besides there Is
nothing discoverable in either Of them
which can be regarded with any show
of reason as prejudical to any right or
interest of the defendant. The matters
to which they referred could not legiti-
mately affect the decision of any ques-
ton involved In the case.
Tho 6fth ciytb cayaptb aiobtb