Commonwealth v. Moon

• Decision Date: 24 February 1919
• Docket Number: 4
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Moon, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

107 A. 389

Commonwealth v. Moon, Appellant

264 Pa. 63

No. 4

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 24, 1919

Argued February 3, 1919

Appeal, No. 4, Oct. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of O. & T. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 6, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree in case of Commonwealth v. Bertie Franklin Moon. Affirmed.

Indictment for murder. Before RUPPEL, P.J.

At the trial the evidence of the Commonwealth tended to show that on August 13, 1918, the prisoner who was employed by Ernest W Saylor, as a miner, deliberately shot his employer with a shot gun. The prisoner was on a strike at the time.

When Grant Lytle, a witness for the Commonwealth, was on the stand the following offer was made:

The Commonwealth proposes to prove by the witness on the stand that when the defendant was riding with him on the morning of the day of the shooting in the direction of his boarding house, he stated to the witness, after talking of the trouble, that he was going out to the mine to fix Saylor's clock; said threat having been made about eight o'clock in the morning and the shooting later occurred about 9:30 o'clock the same morning.

Objected to. Objection overruled and exception (1).

When Hazel Younkin, witness for the Commonwealth, was on the stand, the following offer was made:

The Commonwealth proposes to prove with the witness on the stand that the defendant on the morning of the shooting had come over to the house of George Hyatt, who had gone to work in the mine of Ernest W. Saylor, after the defendant and the other men had refused to work any longer; that he then and there called the said George Hyatt scab and other names; this to be followed by proof that the defendant then came to the home of the witness and there repeated said conversation calling the men scabs and made threats against the deceased and other men who were in the mine that day; this is offered for the purpose of establishing the defendant's motive for committing the crime and also for showing of malice hatred and ill will against the deceased.

By Mr King: This is objected to because the offer does not propose to show that the remarks were made to or in the hearing of the deceased, or in any way related to him, but were in regard to other parties; and as to the threats, the offer does not propose to show what the threats are, and without stating what the threats are specifically, they could not be...