The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1897-04-21
R0DDYS GET
A NEW TRIAL.
The Court Net Willing TO Pass Sentence in
View Of After Discovered Evidence.
WILL Be RE-TaIEo AT MAY TERM OF
COURT.


Public anticipation was confirmed
Thursday morning when Judge Longe-
necker handed down an opinion grant
ing new trial in the case of James and
John Roddy, convicted of murder in the
first degree at December term OF court
for the killing of David Berkey. vener-
able Paint township farmer, whose death
resulted from the effects of injuries in
flicted by masked robbers on the night of
June ,, 1896.
Ever since it was discovered that Rob-
ert Herdman. who had testified for the
Commonwealth at the trial, was entirely
mistaken in the evidence he gave, the
public had been under the impression
that the Court would not assume the re-
sponsibility of saying what effect Herd
mans evidence had with the jury, and
for that reason would not impose the
death sentence until after the defendants
had been given another opportunity to
establish their innocence.
The prisoners were not in court when
the opinion was handed down and the
first they knew in regard to new trial
having been granted them was when they
were visited by one of their counsel.
Both expressed their satisfaction at the
Courts decision.
The opinion of the Court follows;
Commonwealth In the Court of o. d T.
W.. of Somerset County,
John Roddy No. ,, of December
and Term, 1886. Motion
James Roddy. aud rule for a new
4 number of reasons are assigned for a
new trial, none of which, however, we
deem it necessary tn notice, except the
one relating to after-discovered evidence.
The trial was conducted in a careful,
painstaking manner in the hands of
able counsel on the alert for the least ir-
regularity, and the various other grounds
assigning alleged errors are without
merit.
We endeavor to try cases carefully so
as TO obviate the necessity of re-trials and
rarely entertain favorably mott ons for
that purpose.
This case was heard, as we think, be-
fore an exceptionally good jury. We had
no fault to find with their conclusions on
the case as it was submitted To them, and
had the testimony of the Commonwealth
remained as it then was, We should not
for a moment think of disturbing their
verdict.
But it has been corclusively shown, by
dispositions taken since the trial, that two
witnesses for the prosecution who testi-
fled to very material facts were wholly
mistaken, 10 say the least.
AS we recall the evidence T.ottie Adams
and Robert Herdman were the only wit
nesses among those who testified TO see
ing the defendants south of Johnstown
that claimed to have personal acquaint-
ance with them. Both swore they knew
| them and spoke to them the former on
the evening preceding the robbery, at
GeistOwn, as they were going in the di-
rec:ion of the Berkeys, and the latter
early the following morning at the Os-
| born Cut on the +. & o. II. r., as they
were coming from the direction of Berk
ey's home towards their own. Lottie Ad
ans said she got out Of her carriage, went
[ back short distance on the road and
conversed with one OF the defendants.
while Herdman, also. said that he spoke
to them and described their suspicious
movements and their bsdraggled and
travel-stained appearance with consider
able detail.
The dispositions now before us take the
testimony of these two witnesses COM
pletely out OF the case by showing that
Miss Adams is mistaken by at least Il
month as to the date of her drive through
Geistown, aud that Herdman was over a
hundred miles away, at Gettysburg, OH
the morning of June 81, when he swore
that he met the defendants at the Osborn
Cut
We can not, of course, say how much
importance the jury attached TO the testi-
mony of these two witnesses, or how far
il influenced their action, and hence can
not say that the result would have been
the same if it had not been given, or If
the answers now made to it had been
then submitted.
If the case stood as it did at the trial we
should refuse this motion, but as it now
stands it would not only be a very un-
satisfactory one upon which TO pronounce
the death penalty, but refusal of an
other trial would uuquestionably be fol-
lowed by removal of the case to the Su-
preme Court, where it could not be heard
for at least six months and might not be
decided for several months more, with
the defendants meanwhile detained i'm
Jail at the expense of the county, and the
probability that the higher court would
ultimately, on account of the develop
ments since the virdict, direct a re-trial.
and thus the final discrimination of the
C rse would be postponed for year or
more to come.
In view of all this, we deem il best that
new trial be now ordered, so that il
may take place promptly at the coming
May term, and the rule is therefore made
absolute. By the Court.
J. III. LoNGENECKER
April -, 1897. p. J.
Monday District Attorney Colborn was
hard at work examining the evidence ad-
dueed at the December trial and prepar-
ing subpoenas for witnesses to be present
at May sessions. Detective Harris, oi
| JODDstDNIi, WAS III tDilSulidllOu Will uiifl
during the day. The District-Attorney
says the Commonwealth is now prepared
to make out stronger case against the
Roddy boys than it did last December
that lot of new evidence will be intro
dueed which will strengthen the position
of the Commonwealth. At least twenty
five new witnesses, it is said, will appear
for the Commonwealth when the ease is
retired, and it is expected that some oi
them will be able to swear that they saw
the defendants, with whom they were
personally acquainted, in the neighbor-
hood of the Berkey homestead on tbs
night preceding the tragedy.
On the other hand the attorneys for the
defendants will be prepared to put up 8
+ stronger defense when the case is retired
than they were al the time of the original
trial and are confident that they will be
able TO establish their innocence OF tbs
crime charged.
Spring Millinery.
Mrs. l.. Cohen, of Johnstowu, will be
at the Somerset House, on Wednesday
April 2s;h. with an elegant line of Spring