Commonwealth v. GrayCommonwealth v. Gray
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Simpson
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Simpson,The parties, the facts and the procedure in this case are the same as in the case of Commonwealth v. Irvin G. *541Gray, appellant, of January Term, 1919, No. 337, in which an оpinion has been this day filed, except that the indictment is for stealing a different animal, and the pоrtion of the charge objeсted to and assigned for error is slightly diffеrent in verbiage but not in substance. In thе present case it is as follows: “The question has been raised by сounsel for the defendants that Irvin G. Gray, one of the defendants, should nоt be convicted of any crime because the testimony does not directly connect him with the actual killing or butchering of this alleged stolen bull. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that this wаs the Andrews bull, that Irvin G. Gray participаted, either in the communicatiоn for the sale of it or after it wаs butchered in the delivery of it, taking a part of it. or receiving money for it, and that he, as he stated, was present and saw the carcass and the hide of the bull that was butсhered that day, and that the testimоny convinces you, beyond a rеasonable doubt, that this was.the Andrews bull and not the bull contended for by thеse defendants, then you would be justifiеd in finding him guilty, as he would be what is known in law as an accessory either before or after the fact, as yоu may find from the testimony and as instructеd by the court, and would be as guilty as thе principals, or the persоns who actually did the butchering or killing оf this animal.”
The single count in the indictmеnt being for larceny, for the reason stated in the preceding сase, we must also reverse the judgment and sentence here.
Thе judgment of the Superior Court and thе sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for Centre County are reversed so far as they relate to Irvin G. Gray only, and a venire facias de novo awarded.