The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-06-06
SCRANTON rR1EuNE-sAruRDxY MORNING.. JUNE 1895

the scene Of the alleged murder. A the
learned trial judge-referring to this
branch Of the 'defense-very properly
said: If the defendant was at his own
home when the fatal shot was fired, Of
course he could not have fired 1t him
self
CASE WAS FAIRLY TRIED.
mo question is raised as to the ad-
mission or rejection Of testimony. We
are satisfied from an examination Of the
record before us that all the evidence in
troduced by both parties was properly
before the jury, and was clearly for
their exclusive consideration. 1t ap-
pears to have been fairly and impartial
ly submitted to them with clear, con-
else and fully adequate instructions as
to the law applicable to every phase Of
the case. Sixteen requests for instruc-
tiOns were presented by defendants
counsel, in which the law, relating to
the burden of proof. the nature and ef-
feet of a reasonable doubt. and other
matters pertaining to the defense, was
stated in terms msot favorable to the
defendant. These requests were all af-
the jury were thus provided with a safe
and reliable guide in considering the
evidence and in endeavoring to arrive at
a correct conclusion as to the guilt or
innocence of the defendant. In addi-
tion to that the instructions contained
in the general charge were, as already
intimated, fully adequate and substan-
TALLY correct. In connection with these
instructions the testimony was impair
TALLY reviewed by the learned trial
judge, and the rights Of the defendant
were carefully guarded.
IAN examination OF the record with
special reference to the nine specifica-
tions of error-all of which are to the
charge-has failed to. convince us that
any of them should be sustained The
subjects of complaint In the first three,
together with the fifth and sixth, are
respectively excerpts from the charge.
In neither of these, severed as they are
from the cOntexts, does there appear to
be any substantial error When read in
connection with their respective con-
texts, every doubt as to their correct
ness vanishes. In other words, the
-
tions complained Of, is clearly correct.
THE FLIGHT OF DEFENDANT.
1.-The excerpt. relating to the flight of
the defendant. recited In the first specl-
fication was Immediately followed by
statements which brought into view the
defendants theory Of the case. The
same may be said as to the third specifi-
cation In which reference Is made as to
the alleged alibi. Indeed, the entire
paragraph from which that excerpt Is
taken is substantially the language OF
this court in Watson V. Commonwealth
81 Pa Ais.
1T is the special duty Of the court
to call attention to discrepancies in the
testimony, and we are satisfied that
in the discharge of that duty, there was
no error in charging as complained OF
in the second specification. Nor can the
court be convinced of error In not giving
instructions that were not requested by
the defendant, and hence the fourth
specification should be dismissed AS
we have seen, the defendants counsel
presented sixteen requests for instruc.
tion. If other instructions were deemed
necessary, they should have been re-
quested
COURT BELOW rs AFFIRMED.
"We find nothing in either Of the spec..
fications that requires further notice
The case was fairly and correctly tried
and there appears to be nothing in the
record Of which the defendant has any
| lust reason to COMPLAIN
"The judgment of the court below /:
affirmed. and 1t is ordered that the
record be RENTED for the purpose o.
execution"