The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1900-03-07

y
this statute 70 ignore the evidences. il ],
certainly { the Courts office 70 aid OF
encour2gs It 10 do 50. Ia this case there
was absolutely no standing room fol
q second degree vsrdist, and none could
have been consistently rendered. The
brutal killing Of Giessner was defended
on the ground OF insanity ainsse. Tbs
doctrine laid down rather broadly in the
two cases above mentioned. has beer
modifisd. and the Courts duty more
clearly defined in the later cases OF Shsf.
ner Va Con. Y Pa, 50. Nevling vs. Com.
Is Pa. 322 357, McMeen vs.. CON- ia Pa.
900. and Com. Va Hollinger 100 Pa I55.
The last named case was one OF premed-
itased killing by the defendant. OF his
wife. We have taken the trouble 10 pro-
cure fali copy Of the Judges charge in
that case. aud find il wholly devoid OF
any suggestion a. to second degree YER
dic.. bot it points the way steadily to a
first degree conviction according to the
evidence. The p0in. was therefore made
As il is here. thss the jury was inadequate
ly instructed as to ths degree. aud the
case was affirmed in brief opinion We
were not requeste3 to instrL>t the jury
as now contended. Three points were
submitted, ali Of which were affirmed,
bat they did not raise such question
Ia the case of the CON- vs.. Nevling tho
Supreme Court. speaking Of the present
Chief Justice. said the chief complaint OF
Of the defendant. "a IS that the Court
did not adequately present aud explain
TO the jury the subject of e conviction Of
murder in the second degree It is bat
fair to the Court 10 say that none Of the
defendants points exhibited the question
ss an alternative so as 70 require any IT.
lustrafion Of it. In some Of the points il
is claimed there could not be a convie-
ton in the first degree. bat the alternstive
Of a conviction in the second degree wss
not Suggested and therefore 50 far as the
points are concerned il dSes not appear
that the distinction now contended for 50
earutstiy was presented TO the attention
Of th,s Court. We may add, in this case
no request appears ia the points for in
strue.ions of the character now contend
ed for. nor was it intinated to Us orally at
any stage that they were desired or sp-
plicable to the evidence, nor even when
the jury was sent back to its room with
special directions from the Court to ascer-
tain aud designate the degree by their
verdict.
The dsfendant's counsel could not be
impressed with the thought that if the
defense OF insanity failed the verdict
would almost certainly be in the first
degree.
IF instructions looking TO second de-
gree were deemed applicable and dssir-
ed the request should have been made at
the proper time In addition 70 the case
from which we quote above the authori-
ties are abundant on the point aud need
not be produced. After the trial aud
while the rule for new trial was pend
ing it seems some of the jurors were
visited and induced TO state in writing
that they did not understand that they
had authority to ascertain the degree or
TO render second degree verdict. With
oat stopping to rernai < on the practice Of
interviewing jurors after they have re-
turned a verdict and serar4ted, and
when they are no longer acling or speak
ing under the obligation Of their oaths,
We need only say. the jury must be pre-
sumed 70 have understood our charge
just a. il was delivered. and it therefore
speaks for itself
But in addition ii may be regarded as
a somewhat singular circumstance that.
in ease the jury understood hey had
binding instructions 70 return first de-
gree verdict, that they did not do 50 when
they first came in. bat had TO be sent
back with further instructions TO ascer-
tain and name the degree.
Besides, in thus sending them to pass
on the degree they must have understood
that they had power to pass upon the
subject II our directions at that time
were considered inadequate there was
still an opportunity to make request for
full instructions.
ION the whole, we think the case was
carefully tried and the matters now CON-
piaiued OF are without merit--
March ), 1900 A new trial is refused
and The rule discharged
By the Court.
III. LoNsENEcKER, P