The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-10-22

The opinion of the Supreme court
afiirming the judgment OF the local
court in refusing a new trial to George
Van Horn, the murderer of Mrs. Jose
phine Wescott was received yesterday
by Clerk of the Courts Daniels. 1t
was written by Justice Green and COW
ers nineteen pages of typewriting.
Dealing with the first assignment Of
error. namely, that constitutional right
of the defendant to be confronted by
the witnesses. was violated when the
jury was taken to view the premises
and the defendant left behind, Justice
Green says:
mo right of defendant was in any
way impaired or affected by the mere
fact of the view. 1t is not impairing
constitutional right in any conceiv-
able sense. II is fairly within the dis
cretion of the court to allow or refuse
q view. ard as no testimony could be
taken il was in no way preiudcal to
the defendant" Former rulings sub
stimulating this decision were quoted
al length.
IT was alleged that Judge Archibald
said Every unlawful killing is pre-
sumed to be murder of the first de-
gree" as shown by the stenographer's
notes. This was amended by Judge
Archibald by inserting in the certified
copy Of the charge the words though
| net" before murder of the first de-
| gree. He claimed the stenographor
misquoted him. The stenographer pos
itlvely held that he correctly reported
the 5uGge. ON this point the opinion
says:
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.
This assignment can not possibly be
| sustained because the record as it
| comes to us gives no indication that
the words, which it is alleged were
| omitted from the charge, were in fact,
| omitted. We must take the record as
| we find il, and as we find It the in
| struction of the court was perfectly
| correct. But It is incredible that IT
| could have been otherwise, because
! the learned trial Judge, in the imme-
| diately preceding part of the charge
had expressly and much more fully
! charged the jury in precise accordance
| With the instruction as it now appears.
| ard could not have charged as claimed
| by the defendant without stultifying
| himself. The defendant now asks us
to decide that the words though not
| were omitted in the charge as actually
delivered"
1T is enough to say that we have no
| right to change the record in this man
| ner: and, even If we had. we would
not do 1t, because it is impossible to
| believe that the court could have given
two such contradictory instructions in
the same breath. Moreover the learned
| judge, In his opinion on the motion fur
new trial, expressly stated that the
| words were in the charge as 1t was
actually delivered, and that their abb
! sence from the stenographer's notes
can only be attributed to the failure OF
the stenographer to hear them when
| his notes were made"
THE stenographer is not the Judge
ard must not be endowed with any
such functions when he and the Judge
are in conflict upon such subject as
| this.
AS to the allegation that the judges
charge was unfair to the defendant il
giving undue prominence to the facts
which tended against the defendant
and not sufficient prominence to those
which were In his favor, Judge Greer
says:
MURDER WAS CRUEL.
After a most painstaking, minut,
and careful reading of the whole of tn,
charge. and again and again of tn,
parts specially set forth in these sew
eral assignments, weare constrained t
say that we do not regard these assign.
ments as being sustained in any de
gree. No one can read the testimon,
in this case without being convinced
that the offense committed was mos
cruel, barbarous and cold -blooded mur
der, with every element of deliberatioi
and premeditation, fully established b,
abundant testimony"
The attempt to make out a possibil
ity of insanity was characterized a
feeble by Justice Green. The theor,
that he was drawing the back of a ra
zor across the throat of his victim, wa
so utterly preposterous that there coult
be no rational expectations that an,
jury of sensible men would give it tn
least consideration.