The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1897-03-24
TO SAVE HE RopDYs.
Argument for New Trial in Behalf of the
Convicted hurderers of David Berkey.

The defendants were brought into court
by Sheriff Hartzell and Deputy Baker.
! Long confinement has commenced to tell
on the prisoners. Johns ruddy skin has
become blanched, and Jim's milk and
water complexion is even ghastlier than
II was at the time of his arrest. The lat
ter has taken on lot of flesh since he
has been kept at the expense of the coun-
ty, and no longer presents the distressed
nervous appearance he did at the time of
the trial. The prisoners appeared to be
deeply interested in all that was said in
favor of and against giving them another
opportunity TO establish their innocence,
and kept their eyes riveted on the differ
ent attorneys who addressed the Court.
Judge LongeneclIer announced that
the Court would take the testimony tax
en- before the Commissioner at Johns
town and the afiidavits Ia chambers
where they would be carefully consider
ed, and that attorneys would be ex-
pected to confine their remarks to the
most material points on which they
sought to have the verdict of the jury set
aside and new trial ordered.
General CofTroth was the first of the at
| torneys for the defense TO address the
| Court. His remarks were very brief and
1t was evident that he was confident that
the Court would accept a principal of
law, which he read, to the effect that in
csses where a witness finds that he was
mistaken in the testimony he had given
on the trial sufficient reason existed for
granting new trial. Gen. Coflroth's re-
marks were devoted entirely to the ad-
missions of the witness Herdman, who
now frankly acknowledges that the evil
dence he gave in regard to seeing the
Roddy boys at Osborne Station on the
morning following the Berkey robbery
was a mistake that he was in Gettys-
| burg, Pa, at the time.
Charles F. Uhl, Jr., followed for the
defense. Mr.. Uhl pointed out number
of alleged inconsistencies in the testi-
mony of Caroline Rerkey, wife of the
murdered man, and argued that it was
| impossible for her To have seen the count
enanee of the man who dropped the mask
from his face in the Berley home on the
night of the robbery. He also referred to
evidence contradicting the statements of
Lottie Adams which the defense produc-
| ed before the Commissioner at Johns
town.
l.. C. COlborn, Esq, for the Common
wealth. argued that the evidence of
| Herdm m and the Adams woman were
not material and could not have had any
effect upon the jury. He also referred to
the evidence of the defendants witnesses
who testified before the Commissioners
that John Roddy was working i'm Hill's
coal mine on the morning after the Ber-
key tragedy, rs being of flimsy charac-
ter and not to be relied upon.
Attorney f. J. Kooser, for the Com
monwealth, rehearsed a great aeal Of the
after discovered evidence and claimed
that none of il was material and furnish
ed no grounds upon which the court
wo1ld be justified in ordering a new
trial. lie declared that at the time of the
December trial the Commonwealth re-
| lied upon the evidence of witness nam
ed Cooper, who averred that Jim Roddy
J had visited his home in Morrellville on
| the night of the Berkey robbery and had
accompanied him to the Cambria Iron
/ Works early the next morning, seeking
| employment, to work an acquittal,
| whereas the Commonwealth was now
prepared TO show that the witness Coop
er. was working night turn that week,
and therefore could not have been at his
home at the time mentioned. In regard
to the testimony impeaching the veracity
| ftl. A H. l. Gosh
was of a character not TO be relied upon.
/ lie directed the attention of the Court TO
the fact that the defense had made no ef-
/ fort 10 assail the evidence of any of the
other witnesses who had seen the defend
ants travelling in the direction of the Ber
/ key homestead.
District Attorney Colborn summed up
| the argument for the Commonwealth.
| He claimed that if the evidence of the
Adams woman and Herdman was en-
| tirely eliminated from the case sufficient
| evidence still existed to warrant the jury
| in finding the defendants guilty of muir
| der in the first degree. That the guilt o
| the DEF endants was established without
the evidense of the witnesses named. He
drew a graphic picture of the scenes en-
acted in the Berkey homestead on the
night of June 2i, and declared that the
features of Jim" Roddy, who had
been engaged in the dastardly work of
burning the feet of his venerable victim
| in the presence of his helpless wife, were
so indelibly photographed upon the
heart of the old woman when the mask
fell from the williams face, that time could
never efface it. Continuing Mr.. Colborn
dwelt briefly on some of the most telling
points made against the defendants at the
trial, and corrected some of the alleged
misstatements made by Mr.. Uhl.
W. II. Ruppel, Esq, closed the argu-
ment in au earnest and carefully prepar-
ed address in behalf of the defendants.
| He started out by saying that to his mind
and from expressions he heard from
Jurors who sat in the case the verdict was
arrived at from the facts established by
| five witnesses for the Commonwealth:
| The statements of Lottie Adams, Jack
son Ripple. Caroline Berkey, the decla-
ration of David Berkey, and Robert
| Herdman. The Adams woman and
Herdman, he argued, were the only wit
nesses who had a previous acquaintance
| with the defendants and for that reason
their statements had a greater influence
upon the jury than the statements OF
other witnesses. The statements of both
these he claimed have been disposed OF;
As 10 Jackson Ripple, who had testified
in regard to meeting the defendants nj
the watering trough on the evening OF
MAY 9th or 2sth the Commonwealth con-
tradicted his statement by the evil OF
the mail carrier Whitaker and another
witness, who had placed the defendants
i'm different place, several miles east oil
the Berkey homestead, Mr.. Ruppei eall=
ed attention to a number of aihdavits
submitted " which go TO clear mp the aileg-
ed false statements made by witnesses
for The defense before the Commissioners.
lie declared that the jury was only the
Judge OF the facts and not Of the law and
that in his opinion the Commonwealth
had not made out case strong enough 10
iustify the Court in sentencing two men
to death.
1t was after four o'clock when Mr..
Ruppei finished his argument, Court
then adjourned, Judge Longenecker TAX
ing the 5:20 train for his home in bedford.
The Court will render its decision at