The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-02-14
LEON OLCHEFSKI
DECLARED GUILTY
Convicted Of Arson and Attempt 10 De.
fraud Insurance Companies.
HE DID NOT USE EXPLOSIVES
At Least, the Jury Was Not Convinced
That lie Did--Judge Archibald
Asks the Jury to Make n Special
Finding Incorporating the Techni.
cal Question Raised by the Defense,
but IL Declines TO DO So.

Leon OlCnelSKl Is guilty. Inc jury
returned yesterday afternoon at 1.25
o'clock and reported a verdict, finding
him guilty of the first two counts of
the indictment, arson and setting hre
to building to defraud insurance
companies. on the third count. that
of blowing up buildings with explos-
ives, verdict of not guilty was rem
dered. The crime and punishment
therefor are thus described by stat
ute:
Arson - Malcousy and voluntarily
burning or setting fire to, or causing or
attempting to set fire to, with intent to
burn. any factory, mill or dwelling house
of another, or any kitchen, shop, barn.
stable or other outhouse that is a par
eel of such dwelling.
punshmont-Fine not exceeding $1,000
aud Imprisonment by solitary contine-
lnCnt at labur not exceeding twelve
Years. In case of the setting fire to a
dwelling house the fine shall not exceed
$1,000 nor the imprisonment twenty years.
Burning any building not parcel of
dwelling house or attempting the same
Punishment-Fnc not exceeding $1,000
and imprisonment by solitary coniine-
mcnt at labor not exceeding ten years.
Setting fire to any building with intent
to dciraud the insurance thereof
puniShm' 'nt-Fine not exceeding $1,000
mCnt AZ labor not exceeding seven years.
There was an interesting and quite
unusual episode connected with the
jury's return.
NEW LEGAL QUESTION.
When the case was being submitted
to the July, Saturday, the attorneys tor
tne uelens- ralseu the point that Oh
CnetsKl could not he convicted of arson,
as arson Is denned by the statue to
ue the nring uf Ine DuIIding of another,
ana ne ~ indicted fur setting are to
MS own pulIung, tor Ii is mis- own
building, tney COntenued, inasmuch as
Inc Jaw nous Il man ana wlte 10 be
one. 1t Was the nrst time a Pennsyl-
wanna court mad been called to pass
upon TINS point and Judge Archibald
uechneu TO give Il decision imprOmptu.
ne SaId ne Nuuiu consider it and ii the
jury found tnat Olchetski committed
tnc deeu ne would nave the jury make
Il Special nnding subject to this point,
IL beng ms intention that the jury
should say whether or no Olchetski
caused tne rire and that court would
say whether or not ne committed a
crime and what character OF crime he
had committed.
When the jury had handed up it's
verdict, yesterday, Judge Archibald ad-
dressed 1t as follows:
For the purpose of preserving the de-
PENDANTS rights entirely in the matter,
/ am going TO ask YOU to return spc-
Cial verdict, lncol poratinS the fact that
this property which was burned belonged
to his wife and was in his possession and
the possession of his wife at the time
because, as / suggested to you, there
may be a legal question Whptl4r nDIpp
those circumstances he could he guilty
ot what we know as the common law
crime of arson, and therefore to assist
you in making up this special verdict l
have put together what | think it ought
to embody, and if it satisfies you. then
will ask you to make that return.
Then the judge read this special find
ing:
THE SPECIAL FINDING.
We find that Helena Oschefsk the
owner of the dwelling, named in the in
dictment was, at the time of the burn
ing of the same, the defendants Wife
and was then and there in the joint pos
session and occupancy of the said dwell
ing with the defendant, Leon Olchefski
and that the said defendant did ma
liciously, willfully, voluntarily and fe-
loniously set fire to and burn the said
dwelling in manner and form as charged
in the indictment, and If the court shall
be or the opinion, as matter of law that
is sufiicient to constitute the crime of
felonious arson, then we find the said
defendant guilty thereof in manner and
form as charged in the Indictment but
II the court shall be of the opinion that
this is not sufficient TO constitute the
said crime of felonious arson, then we
ma the said defendant not guilty thereof
Let me add to what ! have said -
continued Judge Archibald. that I do
not intend to control you in this mat
ter and cannot control you; ii is for
you to say whether you will return lust
the general verdict which you have
suggested or whether you will return
special verdict in the manner l have
said to you. If you desire you may
adhere to general verdict or make
the return such as is suggested"
Judge Archibald explained at length
the significance of the special verdict
and asked them to consult together as
to whether or not they would find as
he suggested They retired and after
fifteen minutes deliberation returned
and announced that they would agree
to the special finding. Then Judge
Archibald said:
SOMETHING OVERLOOKED
since you retired my attention has
been called to the fact that the indict.
ment contains three counts and thai
the first two only charge the offensC
of felonious arson. that the other
charges under statute which we have
the unlawful. malicious and feloni
Gus placing and throwing in, into, up,
on, against and near a certain build
ing, TO wit, the store and dwellinl
house of one Helena Olchefski, Ger
tain quantity of gunpowder and othel
explosive mixture, to wit, a certain