half past three o'clock, to take action relative to the death of William Hay, Esq. ROBERT J. FISHER." YORK, May 14, 1883. All of the members of the bar now in York quite a number being at the Supreme Court-able to attend, were present at the meeting. At the hour named in the call, on motion of Col. Maish, duly seconded, Hon. Robert J. Fisher was elected President, and on motion of James W. Latimer, Esq. George W. Heiges was elected Secretary of the meeting. The President, on stating the object of the meeting feelingly spoke of the great loss the bar has sustained by the death of Mr. Hay. On motion of James W. Latimer, Esq., a committee of five was appointed to prepare a minute expressive of the sense of the meeting on the event that had brought the court and bar together. Before resuming his seat, and in support of the motion Mr. Latimer paid a warm and just tribute to the abilities and virtues of the deceased. The committee on resolutions appointed in accordance with the above motion was composed of the following gentlemen: James W. Latimer, John Blackford, H. L. Fisher, Levi Maish, Geo. W. McElroy, Esqs. In due time the committee reported the following resolutions which were adopted: The Judges of the courts and members of the bar of York county, in bar meeting assembled, have heard with deep and unfeigned sorrow of the death of William Hay, Esq., which occurred yesterday morning, May 13th. His cultivated mind, ripe scholarship, large professional attainments and unswerving integrity secured for him our respect, and his amiable disposition and unvarying kindness and courtesy commanded our warmest attachment. Cut off by the hand of death in the meridian of life, in possession of his maturest powers of intellect and professional resource, and at a period when those powers and resources were called into fullest exercise, we deplore in his death the loss of an able and useful co-laborer, and a friend. To his bereaved widow and relatives we desire to tender our profound sympathy in their grevious affliction, and invoke for them the sustaining care and consolation of the Heavenly Father "who doth not willingly afflict his children." Be it resolved that we will attend Mr. Hay's funeral in a body and that S. H. Forry, G. W. Heiges, John W. Bittinger and Horace Keesey be appointed pallbearers on the part on the bar. Be it further resolved that the foregoing minute be presented to the court at its next meeting and that a copy of the same be sent by the secretary to Mrs. Hay; and also that the proceedings of this meeting be published in the newspapers. JAMES W. LATIMER, Able and touching addresses upon the life, character and noble example of William Hay, their deceased brother of the ancient and honorable profession of the law, were then delivered by his Honor Judge Wickes, George W. McElroy, H. L. Fisher and John W. Bittinger, Esqrs. On motion the meeting then adjourned to assemble at the late residence of the deceased, for the purpose of attending the funeral. At a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association held Monday evening, May 14, 1883, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted: WHEREAS, It has pleased our Heavenly Father to call from our midst our beloved brother William Hay, Esq., who has been a member of the association for a number of years. Resolved, That while we bow in humble submission to the will of Almighty God, who doeth all things well, in calling our brother from a life of usefulness to a life of peace and rest. Resolved, That we tender our Christian love and sympathy to the bereaved family and commend them to look to that source of comfort which the deceased sought and exemplified in his life. Resolved, That a copy of the above preamble and resolutions be presented by the committee to the family of the deceased, and also be recorded on the minutes of the association and published in the daily papers. J. G. EISENHART, J. F. STRAWINSKI, YORK, PA., May 14, 1883. For the DAILY. We have just laid to his last rest another of York's noblest citizens. Easter Sunday was saddened by the death of our dear Mr. Small; and on Whit-Sunday our beloved and gifted friend, William Hay, was cut down in the fullness of his beautiful manhood. You have well spoken of him as the able lawyer and good citizen. Others have followed with memorials of respect and condolence. It is fitting that I speak of him as the man, the friend and companion, for a thousand memories of the past crowd around me, all so filled with recollection of him that it is in vain to try to resume my work. I have known William Hay intimately for over twenty-five years, and during all that time never heard him speak an unkind word. He was altogether one of the purest and loveliest characters that ever lived. I have never known him to use an expression his loved mother would have blushed to hear; and his mind was bright as his character. Three dear friends-Henry Schmidt, D. E. Small and William Hay-three of the most beautiful characters that ever enriched and ennobled any community, have passed from among us, and the sense of loss and loneliness is almost overwhelming. They have forged strong links in the chain which should bind us all to the Better Land. May the Kind Father, whom they all so loved and trusted, com fort the stricken ones left behind; may He ever fill our hearts with kind remembrance of the fatherless and widow in their affliction," and keep us all, like those who have gone before, "unspotted from the world." A. B. F. YORK, Tuesday Evening, May 15. Tuesday afternoon the last sad rites. were performed over the earthly remains. of the late William Hay. Long before the hour fixed for the funeral bereaved relatives and friends began to assemble, and by the time services commenced the spacious residence of the deceased was filled. A large number of persons from a distance were in attendance. The services were conducted by Rev. Arthur Powell, rector of St. John's P. E. Church, assisted by the venerable Rev Doctor A. H. Lochman and Rev. L. A. Gotwald, D. D. The flower offerings were rich and elegant, consisting of a harp, lyre, crosses, star, sickle, mound and pillows, and filled the air with their fragrance. The funeral was one of the largest that has taken place in York for years. The following gentlemen acted as pall bearers. The Hons. P. L. Wickes and John Gibson, Judges of the Court and Messrs. W. Latimer Small, G. E. Hersh, Horace Bonham and George H. Sprigg. Abstract of Recent Decisions. (Cases not otherwise designated are Supreme Court Cases.) Criminal law-Delay in prosecuting.If a prosecution is not withdrawn, it is the duty of the magistrate to send up the recognizance on or before the next meeting of the grand jury. If such recognizance is not sent up for several terms after it is entered into, and no explanation is made for the delay, the prosecution on that information is at an end, and an indictment not based on a fresh information and hearing will be quashed, unless it appears that the course of procedure taken was required by some pressing necessity. Commonwealth v. Kohle, (Luzurne Q. S.) 12 Luzurne Legal Register 22. Adamstown Borough Road. Roads--Orders to Viewers--When defective. Where the order to the viewers does not conform to the petition praying to view, change and straighten a road, it is a fatal defect and an exception on that ground will be sustained. Where an old road is asked to be changed and straightened the petition should also pray that the parts of the old road not required be vacated, in order that the statute forbidding the width of a road to be more than fifty feet be complied with. Exceptions to report of viewers. - April 14, 1883. PATTERSON, A. L. J.The exceptions to this report of viewers are thirteen in number. We will not recite them. Some of them, in the opinion of the Court are well taken and must be sustained. The 12th exception cannot be sustained. The Court of Quarter Sessions has jurisdiction in this case. The road in question is an old public road, laid out many years since and long before the borough of "Adamstown" was incorporated, and the Supreme Court, have held, and as late as 1870, in 16 Smith, p. 61, in the Summerset and Stoystown road, that "the borough law as to streets does not apply to public roads through a borough of which only part is within the borough. Nor is the report invalid because of the viewers not stating who was to pay the damages assessed to 'Squire Billingfelt. (See 6 Norris 336, Road in O'Hara Twp.) Nor because of carrying the road partly over the bed of a road already laid out. (See 2 Rawle 421, West Chester Road, and 9 Harris 217, Hess' Mill Road.) The petition for this road is peculiar.After stating that the petitioners "labor under great inconvenience for want of a change in that part of the public road leading from Lancaster to Reading," it asks that proper persons be appointed to "view. change and straighten said road;" omitting the petition to vacate any part or portion of the same if found necessary, &c. If, however, such a petition is in itself admissible in this case, of which we have great doubt, the order issued from the clerk's office to the viewers must be considered as fatal to this proceeding. The order of the court is the authority for the action of the viewers, and in this case it fails to order them to do what the petitioners prays for; it is in law mandatory, but it in no part of it orders them to "view, change and straighten" said road. The order directs the viewers "to view the ground proposed for the said road, and if they view the same, and a majority of the viewers agree that there is occasion for such road, they shall proceed to lay out the same, &c." The report of viewers is, of course, in conformity with the order, it mentions nothing whatever about change and straightening; hence both the order and the report is foreign to the petition of he inhabitants. But there is a defect existing of a still more damaging character to these proceedings. The report and the depositions, taken and read at the argument, show that the road laid out is partly laid out on the bed of the old road the whole length of the new road reported; further, that the new road is run and recommended to be the width of forty feet and the old road was sixty-six feet, as represented by the original town draft.— That would, without the vacation of part of the old road, leave the new road more than the width of fifty feet, which is forbidden by the statute, and it has been ruled by the Supreme Court, in the Bridgewater Road, 4 W. & S 39, that "a public road cannot be located alongside of and adjoining another public road so as to increase the width of both exceeding fifty feet." That ruling would strongly imply that where an old road is asked to be changed and straightened, the petition. should also ask the vacation of the parts of the old road not required. The proceedings in this case are, in our opinion, defective ab initio, and must, for that reason, be set aside. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 11th exceptions are sustained and the report is now set aside and proceedings quashed. Witness testified that he had known John Coyle, Jr., 17 or 18 years; that he had plowed for John Coyle, Sr.: plowed in the Spring; got ground ready for potatoes and tobacco; that he saw John Coyle, Jr., on these different occasions; saw him always about when the witness was there "Sometimes he cut wood in the wood shed; one time white-washing, making fence; he and the old man followed me when I plowed, and gathered up stones; sometimes ferried river men, sometimes country people, across the river, he spoke to me, of course; sometimes he'd ask me if I had my corn planted; if I had all my grain in, (I often went back and forward,) asked me if I was done husking corn. * * * I have seen him riding horseback alone up the road sometimes. This Spring 3 years Johnny came and said the old man sent up to see if you would plow for us." HELD, to show sufficient acquaintance with the prisoner to be permitted to express his opinion as to his soundness of mind. It was not error to permit the District Attorney to ask the medical witnesses as to each separate item of alleged evidence of insanity and then group the whole into one question. It was not error to permit the District Attorney in his argument to the jury, to read portions of the Pentateuch relating to murder. Motion for a new trial. The charge of the Court below (WICKES, A. L. J.) and his opinion on the motion for a new trial are given in Com. v. Coyle, 2 YORK LEGAL RECORD 199. The opinion of the Supreme Court, reversing the judgment, will be found in Coyle v. Commonwealth, 3 YORK LEGAL RECORD 133. A motion was then made for a change of venue, which was granted by WICKES, P. J. (see Com. v. Coyle, 3 YORK LEGAL RECORD 171. The case was tried in Adams County, and resulted in a verdict of guilty. This motion was then made for a new trial. H. L. Fisher and W. C. Chapman, for motion. S. McSwope and E. D. Ziegler, for for Commonwealth. May 11, 1883. MCCLEAN, P. J. Upon the filing of this motion and reasons therefor on Monday, May 7, 1883, by Mr. Fisher, counsel for the prisoner, a continuance of the argument was asked for and granted, the Court being influenced largely in granting the continuance by the fact of Mr. Fisher's hoarseness, which would have made it uncomfortable for him to proceed with the argument at that time. He suggesting the last of this week, at the time for further argument, this day, Friday, the 11th day of May, at eleven A. M., was fixed for the purpose. A letter was written by Mr. Fisher to me, dated York, May 8, in which he refers to the sickness of his colleague, Mr. Chapman; the cases of Mr. Chapman for the Supreme Court: a Court of Common Pleas on the 21st, at which both of them had important cases, concluding "all things considered, it seems impossible for us to, be present and argue the motion before say the 30th inst. I exceedingly regret this, but see no help for it. After inquiring of the District Attorney his disposition as to a further continuance, I immediately replied to Mr. Fisher that all other professional engagements of himself and Mr. Chapman I must deem subordinate to what remains to be done in this case, and informing him that I thought that he, Mr. Fisher, should be present today, and that I could not agree to delay. I received a second letter from Mr. Fisher, dated York, May 9th, in which he states: "If the commonwealth's officer will persist in his refusal, we shall of course be compelled to let the matter go by default and take our writ of error.' I considered it the duty of Mr. Fisher to be in court to-day and argue his motion, if he had any good cause to show for a new trial, and the sickness of Mr. Chapman was no sufficient reason for Mr. Fisher's failing to appear. considered by the Court: The reasons filed have been carefully learned Court erred in refusing to allow I. It is respectfully submitted that the the prisoner to withdraw the plea of Not jurisdiction of the Court, before being Guilty, so as to enable him to plead to the called upon to plead to the indictment. prisoner had been arranged in York; the plea of not guilty was there entered, and there he was tried. The record was accordingly made up and sent with the prisoner to this county upon a change of venue. The action of the Court upon the plea to the jurisdiction was simply in ef The first is not sufficient in law. The fect to overrule it. II. The jurors impaneled and sworn in the case, and having the prisoner in charge were allowed to separate repeated ly between the time they were so sworn and impaneled and the rendition of the verdict. III. Oliver F. Neely, who was sworn and impaneled as one of the said jurors, was not a competent juror, his name having been unlawfully in the jury wheel at the time he was drawn; all of which was unknown to the prisoner or his counsel, or either of them, until after the rendition of the verdict. The second and third reasons were of an inquisitive character, containing no specifications in support of them, nor were they accompanied with any offer of evidence to sustain them. The records show that the name of Oliver F. Neely was not in the jury wheel for the year 1882, and that had not served previously in 1883 as a juror. IV. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Court erred in overruling the prisoner's objection to the opinions of Michael Beckel, and other witnesses against the prisoner, on the question of his soundness or unsoundness of mind. An examination of the testimony of parently immaterial parts, the entire chain of strong, affirmative evidence given of the prisoners unsoundness of mind, and asking the medical witnesses for the Commonwealth (in rebuttal,) on each isolated part of the prisoner's defence, the question, "would that show insanity?" instead of fairly embracing all the material facts, or a group of them, in one question. I can see no error in the District Attorney asking the medical witnesses as to the separate cause of insanity, as alleged in behalf of the prisoner, and then subsequently grouping them in one questin, as he did. Indeed, Mr. Fisher frankly stated to the Court that his principal reasons were the last four, namely: the VI, VII, VIII and IX. VI. The verdict is against the law and and evidence. The verdict was not against the law and the evidence. VII. It is against the weight of the evidence:-the affirmative evidence adduced on behalf of the prisoner's insanity alone "fairly preponderated" over the mere negative evidence by which it was attempted to rebut it, and taken in connection with that of several witnesses called by the Commonwealth, to wit: Mary Ann Coyle, Dr. J. O. C. O'Neal, and others, it proved the prisoner's insanity at the time of the homicide beyond reasonable doubt. Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence. The evidence of the prisoner's sanity was overbearing. Michael Beckel shows that he had known John Coyle, Jr., 17 or 18 years; that he had plowed for John Coyle, Sr.; plowed in the Spring; got ground ready for potatoes and tobacco; that he saw John Coyle, Jr., on these different occasions; saw him always about when the witness was there "Sometimes he cut wood in the wood shed; one time white-washing, making fence he sometimes and the old man followed me when I plowed, and gathered up stones; sometimes ferried river men, sometimes country people, across the river; he spoke to me, of course; sometimes he'd ask me if I had my corn planted; if I had all my grain in, (I often went back and forward,) asked me if I was done husking corn. * I have seen him riding horseback alone up the road sometimes. This Spring 3 years Johnny came and said the old man sent up to see if you would plow for us." The witness, although an illiterate man, testifies to the actions and words of John Coyle Jr., which indicate soundness, and having testified to facts within his knowledge, during a long acquaintance and whilst living near the party, he could be Contrary to the better practice, the permitted to express the opinion which prisoner's counsel were allowed the largest he did, that the party was of sound mind. license in reading scientific and legal V. Also, in allowing the District Attor- books to the jury as part of their argu ney to separate into many small, and ap-ment, and there can certainly be no valid * * VIII. Mr. S. McSwope, District Attorney of Adams county, during the summing up to the jury of the evidence in the cause, persisted, in the face of objections. made by the prisoner, by his counsel, in reading to the jury as "good law" in the case lengthy portions of the Scriptures from the xx and xxi chapters of Exodus, &c., such as: "He that smiteth a man so that he die shall be surely put to death;" "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning. wound for wound, stripe for stripe.""He that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and much more of the same sort. |