The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-04-01

Preliminary to taking the yam Horn
case TO the supreme court, Attorneys
Wedeman and Thayer, yesterday,
moved in court to have the record
computed by the insertion of the OBJ
jections by the defendant to action Of
court in allowing the jury to view the
premises in the absence of the defend
ant and Judge Archbalds action in
altering the stcnographer S report Of
mis- charge The exceptions read as
follows:
Afterwards to wit, December 4. 1891
during the trial of said case the said trial
judge directed the jury to view the prem
iSes where the offensc was alleged to have
been committed, and thcroupon the Jury
in pursuance of the aforesaid direction
and in the absence of the defendant
viewed the said premises. The trial judge
and the district attorney also viewed
the premises at the same time, but the
jury were in the custody of two tipstaves
specially deputed and sworn to take
charge of them, and the chief of police Of
the city of Scranton was also directed to
go along to keep the jury from contact
with or interference from the public
The said chief of police was the prosecu-
tor named in the indictment.
THE JUDGES CHARGE
Afterwards, to wit, on the 9Th day of
December, 1897, the said honorable Judge
charged the jury upon the law of the
crime of murder; said charge being then
and there taken stenographicaly by Will
lis COston, the official court stenOgra pher
who afterwards, to wit, on the Sth day or
December, 1897, Transcribed his notes of
said charge. Among others there an
peared in the transcript the notes of the
said charge the following sentence:
Every unlawful killing is presumed TO
be murder of the first degree" and after
wards, the said honorable courr, after
carefully examining the saId transcript of
his charge, inserted the following words,
| though not" leaving said sentence to
read, "every unlawful killing is presumed
to be murder, though net of the first de-
gree The said judge asserted that the
words thus inserted. and not found IN the
notes OF the stenographcr were in fact
uttered, which is disputed and denied by
said defendant.
After reading over the first objec-
tion, Judge Archibald called the atten-
tion of the counsel for Van Horn to
the fact that they made no objection
at the time to the jury being taken to
the premises without Van Horn ac-
| companying, and insisted that this
would have to be duly set forth in the
record before he could give it his ap-
| proval.
| Messrs. Wedeman and Thayer con-
/ tended that this had 10 bearing on the
case, as defendant in a murder trial
cannot waive any right nor can his at
torneys aflirmatively or negatively
waive right for him.
HE REMAINED FIRM.
Judge Archibald, however remained
firm in the position he had taken and
| finally counsel consented to the amend
ment. Judge Archibald thereupon wrote
in the following paragraph: mo OBJ
| lection was made at the time, nor ex-
| ception taken to the order of the court
| directing view, nor to the manner in
! which the said order was executed"
District Attorney Jones argued
| against court sealing this bill of ex-
| ception, but Judge Archibald after a
! time signed and sealed BOTH
| These will go with the other papers
/ in the case to the Supreme court.
Twenty-one days are allowed for filing
an appeal and on the fifth Monday
| following the granting of a writ of
| error arguments will he heard