Commonwealth v. Farrell

• Decision Date: 17 October 1898
• Docket Number: 442
• Citation: 187 Pa. 408,41 A. 382
• Parties: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James Farrell, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

41 A. 382

187 Pa. 408

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. James Farrell, Appellant

No. 442

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 17, 1898

Argued January 25, 1898

Appeal, No. 442, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Blair Co., March T., 1896, No. 4, on verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Reversed.

Indictment for murder. Before BELL, P.J.

The circumstances connected with the killing of Henry Bonnecke are fully reported in Commonwealth v. Wilson, 186 Pa. 1

Michael Poet, called on the part of the commonwealth, testified as follows: "Q. Can you determine from your experience, as you have narrated it, how long a body has been dead or about how long?" Objected to.

By the Court: "Q. Have you had some experience with dead bodies, regard being had to the time that death occurred and the time when you found them? A. Yes, sir; I have also been in the undertaking business a number of years, and when I was in the army I had charge of assorting the dead from the general hospital at Hilton Head, South Carolina."

By Mr Henderson, counsel for defendant: "Q. Have you studied any works on medicine? A. No, sir. Q. Have you never read any works at all on it? A. No, sir; not any more than what a person would read in books, papers, etc. Q. You don't claim to be an expert? A. No, sir."

By Mr Hammond, district attorney: "Q. Can you determine from your experience as you have narrated it how long a body has been dead, or about how long, when you examine it? A. Well, I cannot answer that question fully; if a person is killed or dies, from six to eight hours (objected to). That is my experience in handling corpses.

By the Court: I think we will allow the question to be asked. The objection is overruled and a bill is sealed for the defendant.

By Mr Hammond: "Q. How long had Henry Bonnecke been dead, in your judgment, when you found him? A. Well, I think he had been dead from some time during Saturday night; that would be on the 6th day of April." [2]

The court refused to strike out the testimony of Michael Poet. Bill sealed. [3]

The commonwealth offered to prove by Joseph Peddicord that James Farrell, the defendant, Frank Wilson and William Doran associated together prior to the murder of Henry Bonnecke, in the year 1894, and conspired to rob Henry Bonnecke of his money; and that after said conspiracy, the defendant and the witness assaulted said Bonnecke in his house and attempted to rob him; and that said defendant, after said attempt to rob him, the said Henry Bonnecke, and on the evening of the same day, to wit: February 21, 1895, proposed to witness on the stand that they renew their attack upon said Bonnecke for the purpose of robbing him; that the witness declined and that then the defendant swore he would get Bonnecke's money yet if he had to kill him.

The offer was objected to for the following reasons:

1. Because James Farrell, the defendant, is now on trial for murder, which is a separate and distinct offense, and entirely independent of the other offense proposed to be proved.

2. The offer is to prove that the defendant, James Farrell, Frank Wilson and William Doran associated together in the year 1894 and conspired to rob Henry Bonnecke of his money; and in pursuance of said conspiracy, the defendant and witness assaulted said Bonnecke at his house and attempted to rob him on February 21, 1895.

3. This indictment is against the defendant alone, and there is no offer to prove that either Wilson or Doran took any part or made any attempt to rob Bonnecke on February 21, 1895.

5. Joseph Peddicord, being a self-confessed accomplice, is incompetent as a witness to prove the facts in the commonwealth's offer.

6. He is further incompetent for the reason that he is a convicted felon, and so shown by the records of this court. The witness is incompetent and the evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.

By the Court: June 23, 1896, objection overruled and evidence admitted. Bill sealed. [4]

William Goetz, called on the part of the commonwealth, testified as follows:

"Q. State whether you are a judge of sewing? A. Well, I know whether a garment is sewed correctly. Q. Would your experience and skill enable you to determine whether two different pieces of sewing were sewed with the same thread and by the same hand? A. I know if it was sewed by the same thread but not positively that it was sewed by the same hand; you could tell the same thread. Q. (Showing pocketbook.) Look at these pocketbooks and examine the sewing on this one there and the sewing on this one here and say whether the sewing was done by the same thread." Objected to.

By the Court: The objection is overruled and a bill sealed for the defendant. [5]

Daniel McSweeny, a witness for the commonwealth, on the stand, having stated that he came to Altoona, Pa., on April 16, 1895, to investigate this case, the defendant's counsel proposed to ask him on cross-examination who employed him to come here; whether he came under a contract for fees, expenses, etc., and what the contract was; how long the agency with which he is connected, and its detectives have been employed on this case; how many men they engaged upon it; what is the amount of their bill and by whom to be paid; and what are the nature, amount and kind of services rendered; with whom the contract was made; if he or his firm employed private counsel to prosecute this case; and if so, how and by whom is he to be paid.

The witness having testified that he had been employed by the government and had left their employ, the counsel for the defense proposed to ask him why he left the services of the government, and whether he was not discharged for improper conduct.

This for the purpose of affecting the witness's credibility.

The commonwealth objected to the questions as irrelevant to the issue and immaterial.

By the Court: We have already admitted part of the offer of evidence or part of the questions proposed in the offer and we now reject that part of the offer which seeks to prove this particular, as to the amount of the witnesses' bill or the bill of the detective agency of which the witness is a member.

We also reject the question as to how much, if anything, is to be paid any private counsel employed; but we will allow the question to be put as to whether any private counsel has been employed by the detective agency to assist on the trial of this case:

Cross-examination:

"Q. Do you know how much you paid the men? A. That is a personal question which I refuse to answer."

Objected to, objection sustained and a bill sealed for the defendant.

"Q. How much have you charged the county with?"

Objected to, objection sustained and a bill sealed for the defendant.

"Q. How much money have you received from the county upon this contract?"

Objected to, objection sustained and a bill sealed for the defendant. [13]

The court charged in part as follows:

[The commonwealth further claims that, regard being had to the absence of rigor mortis, or the stiffness of death, and the alleged fresh condition of the blood found near the head, together with the further alleged fact (as claimed by the prosecution but denied by the defense) that respiration was entirely shut off by the handkerchief in the mouth and the cloth around the face, Bonnecke was murdered on the night preceding the day on which he was found, to wit: on the night of April 6-7, 1895.]

[Starting out with this claim or assumption, the commonwealth offers evidence which, it is alleged, points to the guilt of James Farrell, the defendant, and proves that he is the murderer, or one of the murderers, of Henry Bonnecke. Threats made by Farrell after his unsuccessful attempt to rob Bonnecke on February 21, 1895, as testified to by Joseph Peddicord, are relied on by the commonwealth as part of such proof. In this connection, however, I would caution you not to attach undue importance to the fact that Farrell did attack Bonnecke on February 21, 1895. Such fact was properly admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae, or surrounding circumstances, of Peddicord's testimony, and as a circumstance which might point to the probability of Farrell's renewing the attempt, but you must not allow it to unduly prejudice you against the defendant. Farrell is now on trial, not for the attempt to rob Bonnecke on February 21, 1895, but for the killing of Bonnecke in April of that year. The occurrence of February 21, 1895, is only to be considered by you in so far as it may throw any light, if it does throw any light, on this occurrence of April following, namely, the killing of Bonnecke. If it throws no such light on said occurrence of April following it, that is, the attempt made in February, it is to be wholly disregarded and lost sight of by you.]

Further, the commonwealth avers and has offered evidence tending, as it claims, to prove that Farrell, on receiving his first pay at Allequippa, Beaver county, Pennsylvania, whither he had gone after his attempt in February, on Saturday, April 6, 1895, took the noon train on the Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad for Pittsburg, and on that afternoon or evening came to Altoona, over the Pennsylvania Railroad. The commonwealth points to the testimony of Mr. Koelle and Miss Lindley, as showing that he was in Altoona on Saturday afternoon, and to the testimony of ex-Sergeant of Police, John M. Weakland, as proving -- this is the claim of the commonwealth -- that Farrell was in Altoona on the following afternoon, Sunday, April 7, 1895. It is further claimed by the prosecution that the alleged conversation, testified to by Miss Lindley between three men she saw on Sixteenth street, shows that Farrell was in Altoona on a guilty errand on the evening of April 6, 1895.

[A pocketbook...