Summary
Error to the Oyer and Terminer of Schuylkill county: Of January Term 1877, No. 12.
Indictment of James Carroll, James Boyle, Hugh McGehan and James Roarity for the murder of Benjamin F. Yost.
At about 2 o’clock of the morning of July 6th 1875, Yost, a policeman in the borough of Tamaqua, Schuylkill county, was fatally shot while in the act of extinguishing a street lamp in the western end of Rroad street, in said borough. While standing’ upon a ladder, in the act of turning off the gas, he was approached by two strangers, who, after discharging their pistols and inflicting upon him a wound from the effects of which he soon after died, immediately fled in the direction from which they came. The assassins were not known at the time and the authorities were unable to obtain any evidence thát would justify the arrest of any one. On September 3d 1875, James Kerrigan, Michael Doyle and Edward Kelly were arrested and placed in the Carbon county jail, charged with the killing of John P. Jones, at Lansford, in said county. The prisoners. having demanded separate trials, Michael Doyle was put upon trial at Mauch Chunk, in January 1876, and during his trial, Kerrigan made a confession, in which he implicated Thomas Duffy, Hugh McGehan, James Carroll, James Roarity and James Boyle, with himself, in the murder of Benjamin E. Yost. These defendants were arrested in February and confined in the Schuylkill county j ail, charged with the murder of Y ost. Duffy having demanded a separate trial, Carroll, Boyle, McGehan and Roarity, were put upon their trial in May 1876, and after the case on the part of the Commonwealth had closed, and while the prisoners were submitting their evidence, one of the jurors became ill, and after a few days of sickness, died. The eleven jurors were discharged. The ease against the four prisoners was called again for trial on the 6th of July 1876.
The killing of Yost was not participated in by all of the defend•ants, but it was alleged that the act itself was committed by McGehan and Boyle, while Carroll and Roarity were charged as accessories before the fact. Yost made a dying declaration, in which he stated that his assailants were unknown to him by name, but that he had seen them the evening previous to the shooting in the saloon of James Carroll, one of the defendants.
The trial was held before Pershing, P. J., and Walker, A. L. J. When the case was called, the trial of Thomas Munley, for the killing of Thomas Sanger, was in progress in another court of Oyer and Terminer of the county, and the defendants objected to the calling of a jury at that time and the commencement of the trial of their case during the trial of Munley, inasmuch as there had been no order for a separate court and no separate venires for the holding of separate courts for the trial of cases in the Oyer and Terminer, as required by the Acts of Assembly.
The court overruled the objection and stated that under the Acts of Assembly applying to Schuylkill county, Act of 18th March 1875, Pamph. L. 25-28, and Act of 7th of April 1876, Pamph. L. 19, the holding of two courts at the same time was legal.
A jitry having been empanelled in the case on Saturday the 8th day of July 1876, which was the last day of the term, an adjournment was had until the Monday following, and from day to day until the 13th of July, when the trial commencing, the prisoners objected to proceeding, on the ground that the term had expired and that no precept had been issued to hold a court of Oyer and Terminer at that time, and the jury must therefore be discharged!
The court overruled this objection, and the overruling of this and the foregoing objection constituted the first assignment of error.
On the trial the Commonwealth called James Kerrigan, who had made the confession implicating the prisoners, and admittedly an accomplice in the crime, who testified that he knew the prisoners and had known Yost; that Duffy had had a difficulty with Yost and been beaten by him the winter previous to the murder; that a short time before the killing of Yost, Duffy “ told Roarity that he would givfe him $10 for his trouble if he would shoot Yost or put him out of the way,” and that Roarity replied, “ All right, I will, and if I don’t do it I will get two men who will do itthat prior to this a conversation was held in Carroll’s bar-room, at which Duffy, Carroll and witness were present, in which Duffy said he would get Mickey Campbell to shoot Yost, and Carroll said, “ You let that alone, we will get men who will do that; Mickey Campbell don’t belong to the society and it may be found outthat Roarity told witness he had Thomas Mulhall and Hugh McGehan picked out shoot Yost; that on the 5th of July 1875, three of the prisoners, Duffy and witness met in the kitchen of Carroll’s house, Roarity having been called home by the sudden illness of his wife; that Carroll sent witness to procure the loan of a pistol; that upon inquiry Duffy said, “ I am going to shoot Yost to-night;” that either Boyle or McGehan also remarked that “by God they had come three times to do this job and they were not going back until they did it;” that McGehan had Roarity’s pistol, and that Carroll gave Boyle a single-barrelled pistol which he himself previously loaded, remarking “that it was a poor thing to do a job like that;” that witness conducted McGehan and Boyle to the appointed place and saw the killing of Yost; that both fired shots, McGehan firing first; that as they fled together McGehan said “ he had shot Yost,. that he knew he had shot him ;” that witness accompanied them a part of the way to Summit Hill, whence they came, and then gave them directions as to the course to pursue to reach that point; that in subsequent conversations with Boyle and McGehan they had given him an account of the journey, and that they had not met any one but “ Bob Breslin, ” whom they had accosted and asked for a drink of water. The witness also detailed what the prisoners had said with reference to their movements on the day following the murder, and what they had said to avoid suspicion, and to explain their whereabouts the day and night before the murder.
The Commonwealth then proposed to prove by this witness, “ that there was at the date of the murder a secret or' criminal association in this and adjoining counties, called the Ancient Order of Hibérnians, and commonly known as the ‘Molly Maguiresthat all the prisoners now on trial, together with Thomas Duffy and the witness, Kerrigan, were members of the order; that for the purpose of taking revenge upon B. E. Yost, for the beating of Duffy, this association selected McGehan and Boyle to murder Yost, in consideration of the fact that other members of the society who desired the death of Yost were to select men to murder one John P. Jones, who was obnoxious to that branch of the association which furnished the men to kill Yost; that Roarity was a prominent officer of the association and active in the selection of the men to kill Yost, and that James Carroll was also a prominent officer of the association, and as such aided and abetted in the commission of the murder of Yost.”
The prisoners objected, because
1. The witness has already given the origin of the conspiracy which resulted in the death of Yost, and the mode and manner of its execution, in which there was no agency by or reference to any organization or society, .and the evidence proposed is therefore contradictory of what the witness has already testified to.
2. The testimony is irrelevant, because it is not proposed to prove that the prisoners entered into the agreement made in the society, in relation to the killing of Yost and Jones, or were present at the time such agreement was made.
8. The evidence proposed necessarily introduces into this case an independent offence.
To corroborate Kerrigan several offers were made by the Commonwealth, the object of which was to trace the possession and establish the identity of the pistol used by Roarity, and thereby to confirm the statements of Kerrigan made in regard thereto ; to prove that Kerrigan was met on the night of the 15th of July, on his return from Summit Hill, by one Churchill, whom he testified he had met, and to sustain various other statements made by him as to his whereabouts, at times whereof he had testified, and further to show by the mother of Robert Breslin that her son, Robert, had returned to the house at or about the time it was alleged he had met McGehan and Boyle on the road to Summit Hill.
These offers were all objected to by the prisoners, on the ground that they did not tend to connect the defendants with the commission of the crime, and that it was not competent to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice as to matters which occurred subsequent to the murder.
The court overruled all these objections, and they constitute the assignments of error from four to nine inclusive.
The comments of the court upon the character of this testimony, and its beating upon the case, will be found in the portions of the charge of the court'hereinafter given.
The Commonwealth then called James McParlan, who testified at length, that as a detective* but in the capacity of a private person, he became acquainted with the four prisoners on trial, and that three of them, McGehan, Carroll and Roarity, confessed to their participation in the murder of Yost, both as principals and accessories before the fact, and detailed to him the circumstances attending the commission of the crime, an account of which the witness gave. His statement in this regard sustained substantially that made by Kerrigan.
The Commonwealth then made the following offer:—
“ To prove by the witness on the stand, James MeParlan, that as a detective he came into Schuylkill county to become familiar with the working of a secret association, known generally in this locality as ‘ Molly Maguires,’ but the real name of which is the Ancient Order of Hibernians; that he was initiated as a member of that organization; that Hugh McGehan, James Roarity and James Carroll, the three prisoners, whose declarations witness has testified to, were members of that order or association, known to be such to the witness at the time spoken of, and that they all knew him to be a member; that it was a practice in this organization, and known to be. such to the above-named prisonei's, for the members to aid and assist each other in the commission of crimes and in defeating detection and punishment; that said organization was a secret one, the members of which could make themselves known to each other by signs and passwords; that the declarations of the three prisoners above referred to were made to the witness by the prisoners as a fellow-member of their organization.
“ All this to he followed by proof that James Roarity was an officer of this organization, and undertook to furnish the men to murder Yost, and did actually furnish them, by selecting from the members of the organization the prisoner McGehan and one Mulhall, the latter of Avhom was afterwards substituted by James Boyle.
“ This was done at the request of Thomas Duffy, the prisoner, who had been arrested by Yost for a previous offence, and who had threatened to be revenged on him (Yost) for the matter.”
All this offer was,
“ 1. To show the motives for the commission of the murder; and
“ 2. To explain the relations existing between the witness and the three first above-named prisoners, and why the confessions and declarations already in evidence were made.”
The defendants objected to the offer,
1. So far as it relates to and purposes to prove the existence of and membership of the defendants, Carroll, McGehan and Roarity, in the organization known as “Molly Maguires,” as not material, and in no way tending to show the guilt of the defendants charged with the killing of Yost. .
2. It is not alleged in the offer that the killing was done by the order, as such, or in any other capacity of those concerned in it.
3. It is not alleged that Duffy and Boyle are members of the society named, and therefore the offer to prove the existence of the association, and its relations to the parties named — Roarity, Carroll and McGehan — is not material upon the subject of the killing as an act of revenge for injuries done by the deceased to Duffy.
4. It. is not material or relevant for the Common'wealth to give evidence of the means employed to obtain confessions from the prisoners.
5. The threats of Duffy, who was not a member of this association, cannot, and do not, appear .to have any relation to, nor connection with, the association mentioned, and such association is not material upon the subject of motive, as set out in the same.
6. The testimony is proposed to affect such of the defendants as are not claimed to be members thereof, and as such is irrelevant.
7. The offer is irrelevant, and not material to the charges contained in the indictments.
8. The Commonwealth having produced upon the stand James Kerrigan, and proved by him the origin of the conspiracy which resulted in the death of B. E. Yost, and that the persons connected therewith acted upon their individual responsibility, and not as members of any organization, the evidence now proposed is a contradiction of the evidence of the said Kerrigan, and therefore incompetent.
9. That portion of the Commonwealth’s offer which relates to the proof of the practices of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and the membership of the prisoners in that organization, does not propose to prove that the killing of Yost was the act of the association, or that they perpetrated the crime by reason of their membership of said association, or that the practices of said association refer to the particular case now on trial.
The court overruled these objections, which was the third assignment of error.
The witness then proceeded to give in detail an account of the organization, grips, passwords and practices of the' order known as the Ancient Hibernians or “ Molly Maguires,” showing that it was a secret organization, having its ramifications in England, Ireland and Scotland, and the various states of the Union, subdivided into state, county and district organizations, with their several officers, that of the district being termed a body-master; that the signs and passwords called “goods” were transmitted regularly from the head of the organization in Ireland to the various subdivisions through delegates at conventions ; that it was the practice of the organization to assist in the commission of crimes, the design and execution of which were in the language .of'the witness as follows:—
“ As a general thing, when an outrage was to be committed, whether it was to kill a man, or beat him or burn his place down, or anything in that respect, the parties who wanted it done told, the division master they wanted this thing done. The division master called the men together — probably it would not be a full meeting — to talk the matter over, and see whether it was right that this man should be killed, or this place burned, or this man should be licked, as it might be. Then the division master made a call upon some other division master, probably not living in the same county. There was no difference about that, but the men that were to perform this act or commit this outrage had to be men that were unknown, as a general rule, to the parties upon whom the outrage was to be committed. This division master, in turn, pledged himself to this other division master, upon whom he made the call, to furnish men if he wanted a favor in that line of business at any time that he would ask him to furnish men to do it; consequently, the men were furnished and the job was done.
“ If any of the members were arrested in the commission of any crime, the practice of the organization was to raise a fund and to retain the best legal talent they could possibly get, and' the next practice was the ‘ alibi.’ Any members who refused to come forward and sustain the alibi when called upon were expelled, and just as like as not would be killed.”
The portions of the charge and answers to points following, constituted the assignments of error from the 10th to the 15th inclusive, and are given at length, in view of the fact that it was strenuously contended on behalf of the prisoners that the testimony therein commented upon was not such evidence as should be admitted to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice.
“10. It is a rule of evidence that the degree of credit which ought to be given to the testimony of an accomplice is a matter exclusively within the province of the jury. Such testimony should be weighed with great caution. The jury may, if -they see proper, act upon the evidence of an accomplice Avithout any corroboration of his statements. It is usual for courts to advise juries not to convict a defendant of a felony on the testimony of an accomplice alone, and without corroboration, and we so advise you in this case. You will carefully consider the other evidence in the case and determine how far it confirms Kerrigan’s statements. The rule on this subject is thus laid down in ‘Joy on the Evidence of Accomplices,’ pp. 98, 99, as the result of an elaborate examination of the authorities. The confirmation ought to be in such and so many parts of the accomplice’s narrative as may reasonably satisfy the jury that he is telling the truth, without restricting the confirmation to any particular points, and leaving the effect of such confirmation (which may vary in its effect according to the nature and circumstances of the particular case) to the consideration of the jury, aided in that consideration by the observations of the judge.
“ 11. He, Kerrigan, then testifies to meeting there James Boyle, Thomas Duffy, Hugh McGehan and James Carroll, and says that these parties were in the kitchen, and he describes the different positions they occupied in the kitchen, and states further they proceeded to the porch, and that Carroll came out and went up the street, and coming back said, ‘I could not get none,’ and said he had been to John Herron’s saloon and could not get none. Kerrigan testifies that this had reference to the procuring of a revolver, and that Carroll then gave him twenty-five cents and told him to go over to Patrick Nolan’s and ask for the loan of a revolver for a man going to Summit Hill or Mauch Chunk. Kerrigan states that he went over to Nolan’s and found nobody there but Nolan and his wife and a man named Patrick Coleman. Kerrigan called Nolan into a side room and asked him for a revolver, and Nolan said he had none. He states that then they left this side room and he treated the party, including Coleman, and there spent the twenty-five cents which had been given him by Carroll, and returned to Carroll’s and found McGehan, Duffy and Boyle on the stoop, and he asked them what they wanted, and Duffy said, ‘ I’m going to have him, Yost, to-night.’ The witness then says that he remonstrated against the killing of Yost, as he had had a difficulty with McCarron before, and he might be blamed for the murder. He then says that either McGehan or Boyle, and he cannot recollect which, spoke up and declared that he had come there three times to do this job and they were not going back till they did it. He states that he saw McGehan in possession of Rbárity’s pistol; he states that there was a wrangle about the pistol, and that McGehan said he was all right, that he had Roarity’s pistol, and he pulled it out, and the witness knew the pistol; that then Carroll went into the bar-room, went behind the counter, opened a drawer, took from it a little single-barrelled pistol, a breech-loading one-shooter, and he there saw Carroll put in the bullet and hand the pistol to Boyle, saying, at the same time, that it was a poor thing for such a job, and that Boyle put it in his pocket.
“ This is the most important evidence in connection with this case, and it is your duty to scan it carefully, and to see how far it is corroborated by the other evidence. Kerrigan does locate Roarity there at this time, and the other .testimony in the case is that Roarity’s wife was sick that afternoon. To contradict this testimony, Mrs. Catharine O’Donnell was called by the defence. She is the mother of Mrs. Carroll, and she testified that she was at Carroll’s from 6 o’clock to 12 o’clock on the night of the 5th of July 1875 ; that she was in the kitchen there all the time and that these parties were not there, as testified by Kerrigan. She states that she saw Edward Herron there, and he testifies that he was there during part of this time, and went into the kitchen for a drink of water; and that he saw none of these parties there. There is corroboration of this statement in the testimony of Patrick Nolan, and there is a similarity of statement between Nolan and Kerrigan in every particular, except one. Nolan testified that Kerrigan came to his house, rapped at the dóor, and that the door was opened by his wife, and Kerrigan came into the bar-room, where there was no person but himself, Nolan, and his wife and Patrick Coleman; that Kerrigan tapped him on the shoulder and took him into another room, and there asked him for the loan of a revolver to protect a man going to Summit Hill or Mauch Chunk, one of the two places; that he told Kerrigan he had none, and that Kerrigan then proposed to treat, and produced the twenty-five cents, and that he, Kerrigan, and Nolan drank. Nolan alleges that he did not receive any money from Kerrigan, but that Kerrigan threw the money on the counter and he pushed it back to him. Whether Nolan took the money or not is the only discrepancy between his statement and Kerrigan’s as to that part of the testimony. Kerrigan alleges that he spent the money there and Nolan alleges that he declined to receive it. This, as far as we now recollect, is the corroboration of Kerrigan and the contradiction of his testimony in relation to this conversation. This evidence is important as showing the connection of Carroll at least with this transaction in the preparation they had made for the killing of Yost, and showing, if you believe it, that he tried to procure a pistol, and failing to do so, furnished Boyle with the one-shooter, which he said was not sufficient for the purpose.
“12. Kerrigan testifies to other" points, in which he is corroborated by other witnesses. He testifies that Barney McCarron fired two shots after the men as they ran in the direction of the cemetery, and that McGehan fired a shot in return. This is corroborated by the testimony of Barney McCarron, and by the testimony of Yost, and other witnesses. One witness stated that four shots were fired, and others stated that they heard more than two. The testimony of Kerrigan, Yost and McCarron, shows that there were about five shots fired at that time. Kerrigan then testifies to a conversation that he had with McGehan immediately after this shooting took place. He states that he said to McGehan, ‘ I know that you shot Yost, and he was not such a bad fellow. Barney McCarron is ten times worse.’ McGehan said, ‘ I don’t ask better sport than to put such men out of the way, but I don’t like to draw an Irishman’s blood.’ McGehan said he did not know whether Yost would die or not, but he knew that he shot him. The witness in giving his testimony then comes down to the 1st of September 1875, in which he alleges a conversation with McGehan, in which Mc-Gehan said they got home all right, and said he had told Doyle and Kelley that the road they took would be a good road for them to take when they shot Jones; that they did not meet anybody but Robert Breslin, and he was a dirty fellow, who had tried to get the men to work for the company, and he was afraid that Bob would squeal on them. Then he went on to state to Kerrigan all the de~ tails of a conversation that passed between them and Breslin ; that they asked Breslin for a drink, and Breslin said that he had no water there, but if they would go to the house they could get some. Mc-Gehan said they told Breslin they had not time. Then Breslin asked them where they had been and what they were doing there at that time in the morning, and McGehan said he and Boyle had been to a ball at Mauch Chunk, and had got lost, and did not know where they were till they got there.
“ The statement alleged to have been made by McGehan to Kerrigan is corroborated by the evidence of Robert Breslin, whose testimony on this point is very important. On this point you will judge how much Kerrigan is corroborated by what Breslin testified. You have heard the argument of the counsel upon this subject* and what was said in reference to Kerrigan’s obtaining information. There is no evidence that he got it from Breslin, and you have heard the argument as to- how he did get it, if he did not get it from McGehan. If it be true that McGehan made this statement to Kerrigan, then McGehan’s statement and the testimony of Breslin correspond in every particular, as far as we can see.
“ Kerrigan also testifies that on this occasion, on Sunday, the 14th or 15th of July, he Avas in Alex. Campbell’s house, and that there Roarity gave him that pistol for company on the road home. This Avas just after he had met Boyle at Campbell’s, and he started for home about 7 or 8 o’clock in the evening, and he testified that on the road home he met Churchill and McLaughlin, and that he had possession.of the pistol all that time, for five or six days. It is .claimed, on the part of the Commomvealth, that Kerrigan is corroborated here by the evidence of Churchill. Churchill, Avho is a mining boss, testified that on that day, the 14th or 15th of July, as nearly as he can fix it, he was in a buggy, in company with McLaughlin, driving from Tamaqua toAvards his home, and that he met Kerrigan, Avhom he knew well, because Kerrigan had been in his employ, going on foot in the direction of Tamaqua. Churchill testifies, further, that he had a conversation with him, and detailed to you what took place at that time. It is claimed by the counsel that Kerrigan’s statement is corroborated by the statement of Churchill.
“ 18. It is claimed, also, that there are other corroborations of this statement of Kerrigan. He tells you he came home from Avork at 6 o’clock, about a week later than this, and that he found at his house James McKenna (‘or McParlan) and Patrick MeNellis; that he Avashed, and all took supper together, and that on that occasion he gave this Roarity pistol, as it is called, to MeNellis, for the purpose of having it delivered by MeNellis to Roarity, and he testifies that McKenna at that time held the pistol in his hands and made some remarks about it. It is alleged that in this he is corroborated by McParlan, Avho testifies that he was at Kerrigan’s house, I think on the 27th of July, and that he did take supper there, and that the pistol was produced at the time by Kerrigan, and that he saw Kerrigan give it to McNellis to be delivered to Roarity, and that it was there that McParlan came to know this pistol.
“ Kerrigan states that on the 1st of September he was present at McGehan’s saloon, when Aleck Campbell, Michael Doyle, Edward Kelly, James Boyle and Hugh McGehan av ere there ; that McGehan oiled the pistols, and that one of the cartridges Avas too long and stuck out of the chamber, so that the chamber Avould not fit into the revolver, and that he took the chamber out, struck the cap with his knife and the cartridge exploded and the bullet went into the counter. He says that a man named Aubrey came in while they were there. It is alleged by the Commonwealth that in this statement Kerrigan is corroborated by the testimony of Charles Walton and J. C. Williams, who have produced here a part of the counter, showing the hole in Avhich this bullet penetrated.
“ Kerrigan states that he next saw that pistol in Aleck Campbell’s bar-room, Avhere McGehan fetched the men to shoot Jones, between 6 and 7 o’clock in the evening, and that there Avas no one there but Kelly, Campbell, McGehan, Doyle and himself, but that a man by the name of Goslee and a man by the name of Condon came into the bar-room, and that Condon had a coat of arms in India ink upon one of his arms and showed it. He states that they had some drinks there with Goslee, and so had Doyle and Kelly, and that he next saAV the pistols at Tamaqua, at the spring, after the killing of John P. Jones, Avhen Doyle and Kelly Avere arrested for that murder along Avith Kerrigan. It is alleged on the part of the Commonwealth, that Kerrigan is corroborated in this part of his statement by the testimony of Goslee. It is in evidence that Goslee was present at Campbell’s at this time, and Goslee testifies that Kerrigan Avas there, and Doyle was there Avith three or four men, and that he, Goslee, had an argument with Condon, and that Condon rolled up his sleeve and showed the India ink marks on his arm, a statement which goes to corroborate that which was said by Kerrigan as to Goslee’s and Condon’s being there, and the exhibition by Condon of the marks upon his arm. There is evidence called on the part of the defence to contradict this statement of Kerrigan.
“ The evidence of Kerrigan is very important in this case. If you believe his statements, it will not be, perhaps, too much to say that they are sufficient to convict all these defendants. Therefore you should scan it closely and determine how far he is corroborated in material parts of it and how far he is contradicted. We have read the rule of law as to the extent of the corroboration required on the part of an accomplice, in order that a jury may give him credence.”
14. The defendant’s second point AA'as, “ That under the evidence in this case James Carroll and James Roarity cannot be convicted as they are charged in this bill of indictment as direct principals, and under the testimony, if guilty of any offence, it is that of accessories before the fact to the felony.”
The court said: “ We refuse to answer this as requested. If you find from this evidence that James Carroll and Roarity counselled, or aided or abetted the murder of Yost, that although they were not actually present when the crime was committed, they would be equally guilty with McGehan, if you believe that they actually committed the offence.”
15. The defendant’s fourth point was, u That the jury would not be justified in finding a verdict against the defendants upon the testimony of James Kerrigan, an accomplice in the murder of B. E. Yost, unless his-testimony is corroborated in its material parts which connects the prisoners with the killing of Yost. That a corroboration of Kerrigan in such collateral matters as may be consistent with the innocence of the prisoners, is no legal corroboration and is insufficient.”
“ Answer. We say to you that the rule of law is that a jury may convict on the evidence of an accomplice alone, if they believe it; but it is usual for the courts to say to the jury that they should not do it, and that they should have corroboration of his testimony before they would convict. We here say to you now, while it is the rule of law that a jury may convict on the evidence of an accomplice alone, that you ought not to convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of James Kerrigan in this case, as he is a confessed accomplice, and it will be your duty to examine his testimony, and see how far it is corroborated, and in order to determine what credence you will give to it. It should be such corroboration as will satisfy your minds of the truth of what he has stated, as we have already instructed you in the general charge (see portion of general charge under assignment 10, ante, page 113), to which we refer in connection with the answer to this point.”
The jury brought in a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the prisoners were all sentenced to be hung. They then took this writ, and the assignments of error, among others, were those heretofore noted, and as they are respectively numbered.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
