The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1898-01-05
HIsroRY oF THE cAsE.

HISTORY OF THE CASE.
On the night of Jnne ., 1896, two mask
ed men entered the farm house of David
Berkey, one of the welI-tO do farmers of
Paint township, and after binding him
and his aged wife, hands and feet, pro-
eeeded to ransack the dwelling in search
of money. The only other occupant OF
the house, Miss Lucy Berkey, daughter
of the aged couple, attempted TO escape
from the second story of the house, mean
ing to alarm the neighbOrhood, when she
fell from an upper porch to the ground,
sustaining injuries from which she died
a few days later. The robbers applied
fire brands, the flame of an oil lamp and
burning pieces Of paper 70 the feet of Mr..
Berkey in a vain effort TO make him give
up the money he was alleged TO have col
cealed in the house. Mrs. Berkey was
subjected 70 the grossest indignities by
the robbers. Before the robbers left the
house the mask fell from the face of one
Of them and Mrs. Berkey got a full view
Of his countenance, and when she ap-
peared as a witness in court she positive
ly identified John Roddy as the man. Mr.
Berkey fingered in great agozy until the
2d day of October, just four months after
the preparation of the crime VIXEN he
died from the effects of the burns on his
feet. Before dying he made a sworn dec
laratiOn in which he averred that John
and James Roddy were the men who had
robbed and tortured him. Immediately
after the robbery suspicion was directed
towards the Roddy boys and they, togeth-
er with their brother in law, Richard
Jackson. were arrested, charged with the
crime. Jackson demanded a separate
trial. The trial of the Roddy boys was
begun before Judge LOngenecker at De-
cembeE sessions, 1896. On the night of
December 24th at nine o'clock the
jury returned a verdict OF guilty of
murder in the first degree. Jackson
was placed on trial the next morning,
Christmas day, and the following day,
December 25th, the jury returned a YER
dict of not guilty. \ few weeks later the
JohnstOwu Democrat discovered that
Robert Herdman, a witness for the Com
mOnwealth in the case against the Rod
dy's had borne false witness, and when
the matter was presented to the Court,
Judge LOngenecker promptly granted a
new trial. The second trial took place at
June sessions, 1887, and on June 50, ex-
actly one year afier the preparation of
the robbery, the defendants were again
found guilty Of murder in the first de-
gree. An appeal was taken to the Su
preme Court, where counsel for the con-
demned men asked permission to file
their notes of testimony and other papers
in type-written form, alleging that their
clients were too poor to pay for a paper
book. This they were permitted to do.
H.s
The Supreme Court also affirmed the
Judgment in the case of S. B. Philson,
cashier Of the Citizens Bank, Meyersdale,
VS.. the Mutual Life Insurance Company,
of New York. Mr.. Philson discounted a
note for $500 for the late w. II. Dill, in
1891, and took paid up policy of insur-
ance on the life of James Corcoran for
3. 900. as collateral. Corcoran had assign
ed the policy To Dill as collateral; Corcor
an died and his family collected the insur-
ance, after having given the Insurance
Company an indemnifying bond. The
case was tried in 1896, when a.verdict was
returned in favor cf Philson for the
amount Of his claim. An appeal was Ia
ken by the defendants to the Supreme
Court with the result that the trial court
was reversed and new trial ordered.
The second trial took place at May
sessions when a verdict was again re-
turned in favor Of the plaintiff.
judgment was also affirmed in the case
of. NJ. Olinger VS.. Shul:z and MOgnet.
This suit attracted considerable local at
tention at the lime it was tried before the |
Common Pleas Court. Mrs. Mognet, wife |
Of one of the defendants was daughter OF |
Samuel P. Miller, of Summit township. |
Her father gave her means with which to
buy farm, but when the deed for il was |
made it was written in the name of her |
husband. Later MOgnet became connect !
ed with the Mountain Electric Supply |
Company, of Meyersdale, which ended |
and his creditors sought to
gain possession of the farm. The jury |
decided that the title 10 the farm rested |
in the wife, and the Supreme Court has |
now affirmed this point.