The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1900-03-07
'HtH TRIAL REFUSED
III SHEETS CASE,
eour' HaHaA Down voluzsinous 0pinisa
in Reply to the Assixnnents az
Error ~ Counsel for
Defendant
Sentence of Death win be Imposed
Before Court Rises.
ArFEAI 70 THE suFREnE cOusr.

When Court convened az 2 o'cice
Monday afternoon Judge Longenecke
handed down an opinion overrulfns Ia
application made by counsel for Milo
Sheets, convicted Of murder Of the frs
degree az December term. for the mnrds
Of Augustus GieSsner. Judge Lougeneck
er said the prisoner would be sentence,
whenever District Attorney Meyers mad
the proper milton, which will be don,
before the court rises.
Coansel for Sheets anticipated the &C
ton Of the caurt and were not surprise,
when the motion was refused. They "A,
they viii take an appeal to the Snprem
Court. aud expect to % before that bod,
when it sis~ 81 Pittsburg next October.
Harry Weller. Sheets' aecompliee il
the Glessner murder, who pleaded guilt,
Of murder Of the second s-eree. vii
probably reeeive his sentence this week
Following is the opinion Of Judgu
Lougsneeker overruling Sheets applieA
ton;
Aiter The verdict. Dacsn Der q, 1879
the Defendants counsel 6led a motion 70,
new trial. specifying i've ground,
therefor. The irst, second and third ar,
siereotyped ones. ramely, tIl s.the yer
dict IS against the charge Of the Court :
- the verdict is against the law and
ca ''the verdict i against the evidence il
the case" These three are withoui
foundation and are not pressed on the
argument Of the motion. The fourth al
leges that The Coovt erred in the zdmis
sion OF certain evidence and the exeiu-
sion Of other evidence without indiezt-
ing in any manner the portions OF the
evidence supposed to have been improp-
erly admitted or the offers er-oneousIy
excluded. The ifth specification states
''that the Court erred in portions of the
charge" without any further intinAtiou
Of the portions Of the charge to which the
assignment was directed. That was the
whole case for new trial as disclosed By
the record, or Of which the Court had any
intimztion.
Then there was added q request ''foF
further time 70 present other reasons,
and that they be given time to specify
other matters alleged in their 4th and
and 5th assigned reasons above. until the
court stenographsr shall have filed the
notes Of testimony and the counsel shall
have had time TO examine the same.r
''On this motion a rule was awarded
with directions 10 the stenOgrapher 10
transcribe and fiie the testimony prompt
~. and thsf the defendants counsel have
leave 10 file additional reasons at any
time to January Is. 1900. so that the rule
might be argued the 4ih Tuesday Of Jan
uary. The ssenographer's notes of the
trial were fled in ample time. but no ad-
diiionsl specifications we're filed
'-When argument on the rule was heard
January 27th il was eontended under the
fourth reason mentioned. that the Court
erred in admitting the confession made
by the defendant OF bis completely in
this crime in the presence of II. Lam
Der and ". H. HArtzzll, upon the ground
that he had previously made statement
of similar import TO Detective Egsn.
under certain Inducements which, in the
opinion Of the Court. rendered the orig
inal sta,ement 80 made to Esgan mad
missibIe.
The case of Com vs.. Harmsn, 4th Ps
26s. Is relied on TO sustain the proposition
Bat Egzn was not present on the day OF
the confession to Lara bert and Harizell
and no reference Whatever was then made
to what be told The defendant, 50 that
there was no connection between the two
conversations, or between the parties,
which could supply motive in the de-
fendznt 20 adhere 70 a false statement, if
such were previously made. Lambert
was he editor Of a newspaper in Somer-
set. where Sheets had some time resided,
and before the accused uttered 8 word a.
70 his participation in the beating and
robbery Of GIessner. be was told by Lam
bert that whatever he might say on the
subject would be Published. He under
stood that The only parPose OF Lam bert's
interview with him was 70 procure his
version Of the tragedy for publication in
his paoer; and that II had nothing to do
with the administration Of the law or his
own protection No iudneement was
offered to him TO obtain the statement,
nor Is there any reason % believe that he
was in any measure acting under the in
fuenee Of anything thai passed between
him aud Egan, or upon the basis Of any
incentive suggested by Egan- We un-
derstand the object Of the Law TO be the
exclusion Of false confessions Introduced
by promises Of protection or the hope Of
immunity from punishment and not the
rejection Of truthful statements coming
from the accused.
We endeavOr to guard carefully the
rights Of the defendant against the adj
mission Of any OF bis declarations which
it v as believed might have been prompt
ed by the hope Of personal advantage
But those made 10 Lambert being free
from any apparent incentive TO falsehood.
being on the contrary entirely voluntary
and proving - be in accord with the other
testimony IN the case We are unable TO
discover any error in receiving them in
evidence
Under the hfth reason, namely. that
the Court erred in parts of the charge. it
Is now contended that the jury were in
fact instructed 10 return q verdict of first
degree murder, that there WAS very ipzd-
eauate instruction ss to the power Of the
jury to return verdict in the second de-
gree
To sustain this position the case Of
Rhodes v. Com. A. Pa. I'D. and Lane vs.
same, 50 Pa. 81, are particularly relied
upon
"The case st bar was that Of be MI
c:4e for the purpose Ct robbery All the
preof show ed cold biopded killing for
pIunder. accomplished by the defendant
on public highway in TIE darkness Of
night, By steslthily following the deeeas-
"a. approaching him from behind and
beatiug him into insensibility with a
stick CT stovewood and then looting his
rockets. A homicide thus perpeirated is
defined BY the statute a. murder OF the
6rss degree. Al indictments are drawn
charging murder merely, without stating
the degree, and. in case Of conviction, the
statute imposes upon the jury the duty Of
the degree in the verdict.
or eourse ths jury plust TX the degree,
and the Court can not do IL; but We can
not believe that it was ever intended by
The Legislature in placing that duty on
the jary TO give them carte 6taaeA TO
disregard the evidence and return a sec
,ns degree verdios IN = first degree case
..They are 20 name the degree, hEt ac-
eorsirg 70 the evidence and the law ap-