Opinion by
Nine bills of indictment were consolidated for trial before the same jury. Eight of them charged the defendant with arson, under §905 of the Penal Code of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, 18 PS §4905; the ninth indictment charged him with setting a junked automo *563 bile afire in violation of §907 of the Code, 18 PS §4907. There were no eyewitnesses to any of the crimes but the defendant, a 19-year-old boy confessed to the commission of all of them after his arrest. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case the trial court sustained demurrers to the evidence as to five of the arson indictments because proof of the corpus delicti in each instance was lacking. The defendant however was found guilty on the remaining three charges of felony, Bills 39, 39-2 and 39-6, and on the fourth Bill, 39-8, сharging the unlawful burning of personal property, a misdemeanor. A single indeterminate sentence to the Pennsylvania Industrial School at Camp Hill was imposed.
The appеal before us was taken by the defendant from his conviction and sentence in the court below in No. 39 June Sessions, 1954. No appeal was taken in any of the other three cases. Although a single sentence was imposed generally on all four convictions the sentence is valid and cannot be set aside in this appeal since it does nоt exceed the maximum which could have been imposed on the conviction of arson on Bill 39. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Waychoff,
We are unable to agree with the defendant that the corpus delicti was not sufficiently proven in the three arson cases in which he was convicted, including the prosecution on Bill 39. It is a familiar rule that an extrajudicial confession by one aсcused of a crime cannot be received in evidence unless and until the corpus delicti of the offense has first been established by independent proof.
Commonwealth v. Turza,
The jury upon sufficient proofs found that the corpus delicti of the arson charged in Bill 39 was established. The uncontradicted testimony is that a fire was observed in a recessed areaway enclosing a basement window of a factory building of the Colonial Abrasive Products Company in Conshohocken. Papers and leaves, with other inflammable trash which had collected there, were burning, as well as the wooden frame of the window, when the fire was first observed. The circumstances might have indicated that this fire was accidental in origin except for the fact that simultaneously there was a second fire in the inside of a cupboard in another part of the building. There was no connection between the two and no рossibility that one fire caused the other. Two firemen of long experience
*565
in the investigation of the causes of fires, without objection by the defendant gave it as their оpinion that these fires were criminal in origin and the jury so found. The subject of Bill 39-2 was a fire that destroyed a garage or stable at 610 Harry Street, Conshohocken. The outside of thе building had been fired in two places by means of a lot of newspapers “all rumpled up.” The circumstances rebut every inference that the incidence of the fire wаs accidental and there is positive evidence in the testimony of Joseph P. Thomas, the Conshohocken Eire Chief, who has had a wide experience in the investigatiоn of the causes of fires, that it was incendiary in origin. This testimony also was received without objection. The evidence in support of Bill 39-6 relates to a fire which totally destrоyed a garage with a resulting loss of $3,500 to the owner. From his investigation the Fire Chief gave it as his opinion that this fire “could have been accidental
or
set by someone.” In eaсh of these cases the corpus delicti was sufficiently proved under the rule of the
Gardner
case and the authorities cited above, and the defendant’s confession to thеse crimes was admissible. Bill 39-8 charged the malicious burning of an old junked automobile in a remote section of the premises of Fazio Metals Inc. in Conshohocken. The ear was completely enveloped in flames when the witnesses first observed it. There was no direct evidence on the question of the origin of the fire but the circumstances rebut an inference that it was from accident. We need not decide here whether the charge of the court on corpus delicti on Bill 39-8 was a correct statemеnt of the law. Defendant did not appeal in that case and the question is not raised here. We may state, however by way of dictum, that we do not agree that the rule as stаted in 1 Henry Pa. Evid. 4th Ed. §183 is the law of this State. The classification of
*566
crimes as felonies or as misdemeanors is most illogical in Pennsylvania, and in general we will follow what was done in
Commonwealth v. DuHadway,
: The trial judge inadvertently used lаnguage at one point in charging the jury which could be interpreted to mean that regardless of whether the confessions were made voluntarily or involuntarily the jury could consider them if they believed the confessions to be true. Standing alone this statement in the charge would constitute reversible err of.
Commonwealth v. Jordan,
So also there is no merit in appellant’s contention that there was “basic and fundamental error in the court’s charge in that it was inadequate, misleading, confusing, and fatally defective.” The charge of the *567 court fairly and substantially covered tbe issues in this case and no further requests for charge were made by defendant’s counsel although invited by the trial judge at the conclusion of the charge in this language: “Now I will ask counsel whether they have anything to suggest, delete, amend or add.” Appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced- by the alleged inadequacy of the charge in any respect and in the absence of a request for further instruction he сannot now complain. Commonwealth v. Waychoff, supra.
There was evidence for consideration by the. jury that the defendant was of low mentality but the psychiatrist who testified as to his mental capaсity also stated that he knows the difference between right and wrong. The fact of his relatively low mentality therefore does not relieve him of the consequences of his vоluntary criminal act. Cf.
Com. ex rel. Ringer v. Maroney,
The consolidation of indictments charging separate and distinct offenses is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court and where, as here, the indictmеnts are closely related such consolidation will not furnish grounds for reversal unless the defendant has been prejudiced thereby.
Commonwealth v. Lehman,
The defendant was fairly tried and was convicted by sufficient competent testimony which the jury accepted as proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.