Commonwealth v. Ronemus

• Decision Date: 27 April 1903
• Docket Number: 35
• Citation: 54 A. 1095,205 Pa. 420
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Ronemus
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

54 A. 1095

205 Pa. 420

Commonwealth v. Ronemus

No. 35

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 27, 1903

Argued March 30, 1902

Petition, No. 35, Jan. T., 1903, by William Ronemus and Henry McElmoyle, for certiorari to the court of O. & T. of Carbon County, Oct. T., 1902, No. 6, and for change of venue in the case of Commonwealth v. William Ronemus and Henry McElmoyle. Order vacated.

Petition for a certiorari and change of venue.

The petition was as follows:

The petition of the defendants above named respectfully represents: --

That on October 15, 1902, indictments charging the defendants with murder were found by the grand inquest in and for the county of Carbon, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to No. 6 October term, 1902.

That the trial upon the said indictments is set down for the term of court of oyer and terminer in and for said county beginning January 12, 1903.

That on October 17, 1902, your petitioners presented their petition to the honorable, the judges of the said court, alleging that a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained in the said county by reason of the undue excitement, prejudice and combination existing against them, and praying that a change of venue should be granted.

That on December 15, 1902, the Hon. HORACE HEYDT, president judge of the said court, by opinion filed, granted the prayer of the said petition, directing a change of venue transferring the trial of the said case to the court of oyer and terminer of Lehigh county, Pennsylvania.

That on December 29, 1902, the Hon. E. P. WILLIAMS and the Hon. E. R ENBODY, associate judges of the said court, unlearned in the law, filed a written opinion in which the prayer of the defendant's petition for a change of venue was refused.

That a large part of the citizens who serve as jurors in said county are employed in the mining, preparing and shipping of anthracite coal.

That a large proportion of the men so employed are members of a labor organization called the United Mine Workers of America.

That Patrick Sharp, for the murder of whom the petitioners are charged in the above-named indictment, was a recognized leader of the United Mine Workers and was active in fomenting riot, strife and dissension during the period of the coal miners' strike, and in arousing hatred and prejudice against nonunion men and particularly against those who in any way aided in protecting coal properties from damage and destruction.

That petitioners are not members of the Mine Workers' Union, and at the time of the death of Patrick Sharp were employed by the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company in protecting their properties, and by reason of the said employment incurred the hatred and ill-will of the members of the said union and of those affiliating and in sympathy with them.

That in the said county of Carbon there are many other labor organizations containing a large membership, who during the said strike sympathized with and contributed to the support of the members of the miners' union and their families.

That during the strike the nonunion men and those engaged in protecting the coal properties were threatened, abused, and ill-treated in their homes and while attending religious services upon the Sabbath, and upon the highways.

That so great was the excitement and disorder in the mining region of Carbon county that the sheriff was unable to maintain order, and was obliged to call upon the governor of the state to send troops to protect life and property.

That this hatred and prejudice against nonunion men by the members of the union extended to their neighbors, relatives, friends, and the members of other labor organizations throughout the county and still continues to exist.

Your petitioners therefore allege that under existing conditions they cannot have a fair and impartial trial upon the above indictment in the county of Carbon, because of the undue excitement in said county and the prejudice and combination against them, not only on the part of the public generally but by the jurors likely to be called for the trial of the case . . . pray:

1. That a rule may be granted upon the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be served upon the district attorney of the county of Carbon, to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not be granted to bring into this court a certain indictment and proceedings connected therewith now pending in the court of oyer and terminer in said county of Carbon, No. 6, October term, 1902.

2. That the decree entered on December 29, 1902, by the said associate judges be vacated and set aside.

3. That your honorable court will thereupon order a change of venue in said case to some adjoining and convenient county where the causes alleged in said petition do not exist.

4. That all proceedings on the said indictment in the court of over and terminer of the said county of Carbon be stayed until further order of this court, and they will ever pray.

The material findings of fact by HEYDT, P.J., are set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The president judge entered an order directing that the venue should be changed to Lehigh county. The associate judges unlearned in the law dissented from the opinion of the president judge, and entered an order setting aside the order of the president judge and refusing the change of venue.

Frederick Bertolette and Samuel Dickson, for petitioners. -- The power of the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari in such cases is now no longer open to question. The authorities are collected and reviewed in Commonwealth v. Delamater, 145 Pa. 210, Commonwealth v. Smith, 185 Pa. 553, and Petition of M.S. Quay, 189 Pa. 517. In the opinion of Mr. Justice MITCHELL in Commonwealth v. Smith, 185 Pa. 553, it is said that the proper practice is to apply for a change of venue to the court below, before asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari and make an order. See also Com. v. Balph, 111 Pa. 365.

The facts set forth in the petition, and found by the president judge, constitute a case for the granting of a change of venue within the meaning of the second clause of the 1st section of the Act of March 18, 1875, P.L. 30.

Frank P. Sharkey, district attorney, and E. M. Mulhearn, for the commonwealth, cited: Com. v. Buccieri, 153 Pa. 535.

Before MITCHELL, FELL, BROWN, MESTREZAT and POTTER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL:

This is a petition for a certiorari to the court of oyer and terminer of Carbon county to remove the record and proceedings under an indictment in that court for murder against the petitioners, and for an order to change the venue under the Act of March 18, 1875, P.L. 30. The authority of this court independently of that act has been settled by the cases of Com. v. Balph, 111 Pa. 365, Com. v. Delamater, 145 Pa. 210, Com. v. Smith, 185 Pa. 553, and Petition of Quay, 189 Pa. 517. The petitioners, following the practice indicated in Com. v. Smith, supra, first filed their petition in the oyer and terminer of Carbon county, with the result after a hearing and consideration by the full court that the president judge entered of record an order for a change of venue supporting it by an elaborate opinion on the facts and the law. One of the associate judges expressed his dissent at the time and two weeks later both the associates joined in an opinion expressing their dissent, and entered an order denying the change of venue.

On this state of facts, set forth in the petition, this court granted a rule to show cause why a certiorari should not be allowed on which the record has been returned...