*1 under a “con- undertaking paragraph 9(a) simply dition” and not a and once the elect- “warranty” buyer ed to accept tbe agreement provisions paragraph ceased be 9(a) operative no buyer right to recover any damages.
The of the Court is affirmed. judgment below Costs to be paid appellant.
Mr. Justice Bell and Mr. Justice Cohen dissent.
Commonwealth, Appellant. v. Sauders, *2 April
Argued Before C. J., Bell, 1957. 15, Jones, JJ. Jones Arnold, Cohen, Musmanno, Chidsey, Jacques Geisenberger, him L. H. Theodore appellant. for Brubaker, appellee. Attorney,
William G. District for Storb, October 1957: 7, by Opinion Mr. Justice Bell, Mary Mary E. E. The alias defendant, Sauders, (Will) was indicted the murder of William Sauder, by jury Glasgow, and was convicted of murder degree first with the recommendation life im- prisonment. judgment Motions arrest of and for a trial were filed counsel for the defendant. The new pressed for a trial motion new the time of argument in the Court nevertheless the motion below; judgment in arrest of and the motion for a new trial were dismissed the lower Court. important very question
The raised in this case is solely whether the which was evidence, circumstantial legally support character, sufficient to the de- degree fendant’s conviction of first murder. May
On 3, the date of the 1855, and for a murder, period prior considerable of time the defend- thereto, Glasgow, ant and William together, lived victim, admittedly clergy. without benefit of The evidence produced by clearly the Commonwealth established that William by being was murdered struck over the head with some lay blunt instrument as he very in his bed in occupied small one room house by the victim and weapon the defendant. The murder *3 was never found. Dr. any O’Donnell testified that normal male or adult, could have female, inflicted the weapon fatal wounds if heavy enough. the murder eye There was no witness of the murder and the exact According time of death was unknown. to the Commonwealth’s the evidence, defendant was the last person p.m. known have seen alive. At 8 evening May on the of neighbor, a 3, 1855, Thomas informed Hardin, the defendant was telephone. called on Hardin’s Between 9:30 and 10:00 p.m. evening, of that same defendant left the house where she and the deceased lived. She then entered a taxicab which she had ordered and which had been parked in front of the residence. The taxi was driven by Browning (called James T. “Brownie” the de- fendant). any There nowas evidence of one else hav- p.m. following day seen the decedent until 2:00 the he found murdered when was Hardin. Dr. Stahr, Deputy opinion testified the his Coroner, the somewhere death occurred between 8 and 20 hours be- body the was discovered. fore
Upon discovery the Hardin called murder, police. Upon police found the victim’s arrival, defendant’s) body lying pool (and in a his blood on Clothing hanging pegs bed. on near the bed and other objects spattered near the were blood. The bed ceiling foot and the room were end bed spattered According similarly to State with blood. (the investigator), Policeman Charles Simmons room dis- in which he found the decedent was not any struggle. orderly did of a not show evidence poeketbook pillow He found a under on also which lying. It decedent was contained a bill and $100 first to de- bill. Simmons was the interview the $5 evening May at fendant which time 4, 1955, custody. He taken into testified, defendant was as inter follows: alia, things
“. first me she said, . . one asked pocket you ‘Did find he had a bill Will’s book, $100.00 it.’ I said it in it now where could bill $5.00 pocket it in his book under have and she said was been, questions, pillow, his then I asked her several different you and then she turned Brownie ‘Don’t said, my calling telling put back and Will remember you hear him answer and Brownie cat didn’t me?’, in, fairly said Mrs. Sauders was well intoxicated ‘No’. custody we took her into as she sat there, time. . . . *4 you question (A) a Did her at later date? I
“(Q) (Q) questioned a number of times. What, Sauders you happened? (A) anything, did tell the if she Well, things angle first money she was one talked questioned how came when she about about, given buy money, had her a she said Will $238.00 son who had and that she had died, monument her figured Later she her own. when out what of $5.00 spent spent money, she the had the ma- had of she approximately jority, and wliat we recovered, which,is in excess the amount about of $200.00 $438.00 (Q) say gave admitted he did she about she her. What (A) said didn’t know that? She she confused, gave always what he had this she answer.” her, proved hang- clothing The Commonwealth that the body great near as the as of other well number spattered objects pat- situated near bed with a the were droplets. incriminating of tern blood The most evi- as as far the dence, defendant was that concerned, bloodstains on the were found dress and coat which wearing she was when she left the residence on the evening May expert of 1955. Peter an 3, Striekler, testified that dress and coat chemist, worn pattern drop- defendant contained the same of blood clothing vicinity lets as were found on other of and that this blood victim, was human blood. The admitted that the bloodstains on the defendant found shoulder area her dress and on the lower front left of portion right sleeve and chest of front left Glasgow, area her coat were the blood William of the victim. gave conflicting concerning
Defendant stories how gotten bloodstains on her clothes. she First, told Officer Simmons that the bloodstains on her dress accompanied Glasgow received when were she to a doc- Glasgow tor’s office after was involved in an automo- subsequently bile accident. When confronted with the falsity story accompanying to a doc- tor after an automobile accident which occurred sev- prior eral months to the murder, then said George man the name Streeter had come to evening Mag house on the S, 1955, had struck causing in the face thus his nose to bleed and spattered on the blood dress coat. Defendant produce George impli- did Streeter whom she *5 identify Streeter a man named caled and could not produced by An exhaustive who Police. State any by other failed to disclose search State Police George the defendant. Streeter such as described the defendant further testified that Officer Simmons blame take the entire at one that she would stated time hated see “Brownie crime because Browning, he burn driver] ... [James T. the taxicab young is too to die.” (same) in the lived
The Hiltons and the Hardins adjoins Thomas Har- victim. that of the house which p.m. evening of din on testified that after 10:00 May anyone the Glas- to see around he failed 3, 1955, gow hear failed to Sauder and likewise residence, any testimony this noise He reiterated therein. morning regard periods during early hours to two baby. newly May his born 4 when he arose to feed seeing age the arrival Ruth Ann recalled Hilton, 12, Browning, that and stated the taxicab driven anyone victim’s resi- around the she did not see else evening. testified Elizabeth Hilton dence any around the or see disturbance she did not hear generally premises dog, night, and that her who approached, quite strangers loudly failed when barked evening. Leroy the husband to bark on that Hilton, testimony inso- of Elizabeth corroborated Hilton, dog far concerned. as the consistently guilt. denied Accord- Defendant testimony she last examination, on direct to her leaving their when room saw William (between (Brоwning) taxicab 9:30 to take the May S :Q0 lying p.m.). so been in bed, and 10 arrival. Defend- Streeter’s before testified, defendant as follows: alia, ant inter testified, came, ready George I in was [Streeter] When “A. you going away’? I go “Are he said, town, *6 said Will yes. [Glasgow] spoke up and said ‘Will you take like somebody with I along said you?’ no, I didn’t know if I was even and going, Will made re- marks about him and I said if was going some- body like that him just give back the money and we will go and he and again, George an argument and him George slapped on the face and Will up got and sat on the front of the and I bed, got up and I took hold of Will and I told him to sit down. George had brought two bottles of beer ivith him along to make certain he had something the house to drink. I said you take beer and your get and I moving walked Will over and he sat down on the bed and again, after I there got telephone call. . . .
“Q. And you say George Streeter struck him? A. struck him Yes, right around the mouth across the Q. Aose. Did that cause A. anything? Causing Q. hose to bleed. What did do after you that? A. Well Will and he his got up, nose was he bleeds bleeding, and very that’s I easily, how got blood on my I shoulder. ‘Now sit said, down’. Will, He crossed over and got beer and he was standing pretty I and told him close, to T and get going said don’t you need to bother back coming just like anymore, that. ...
“Q. After George slapped Will on his nose and his nose started to what bleed, happened then, what did I Q. do? A. told you George get And going. did he? A. he . . . Yes, went, yes.
“Q. This was on while going were you care taking Q. of Will’s nosebleed? A. Yes. You left him off? take A. left I George right and away finished Will cleaning Q. up. Then had this you say you blood splashed over dress? IA. knew the blood your Will there, told and Q. me to go change dress. Who told my you? change, I I would said 'A. He he me but told did, just keep anything.” hurt it didn’t Glasgow had asked
Defendant testified that then he was off receiver since turn the television sleep”. “going go this time At to lie down pair pants pajamas had on his tvith pulled top home them. She left their over then (Brown- p.m. got in 10:00 between 9:30 and day ing) night and taxicab. Defendant then related a City carousing various bars cafes County having been driven there Lancaster, Browning testimony re- in this who corroborated *7 spect. During carousing, of this defendant the course spent admittedly money, sum of considerable spent part money of the victim. She testified that she money for a new dress. On a later occasion, de- this Officer asked about dress Simmons, when Simmons): replied (according “I to Officer fendant go I knew Will and wanted to to the funeral was dead home.” The evidence shows that defendant apprised Glasgow by of the death of outside purchased she sources until had the dress. after police immediately In statements to the her oral being custody and in a written state- after taken into great related in ment which she defendant de- made, preceding day her activities on the the murder, tail following May day. night and the It 3, 1955, significant that in these initial oral written state- George to mention Streeter ments, failed defendant only any way after whatsoever. It was the defend- pattern spatters of blood confronted with ant was George that the name of Street- and coat, her dress On the defend- cross-examination, was mentioned. er with the written statement which, was confronted ant incidentally, was at variance with several statements direct she made on examination. The defend-
387 why George ant was asked she did not mention Street- the time er at the written statement De- was executed. George fendant answered that she was afraid “that something Upon question- do would me”. further again why defendant was asked matter, George did not tell them about Streeter in the statе- replied figured they I ment. She “Well, could find they it out what are for.” that’s themselves, throughout From the time of her arrest the course repeat, staunchly of the trial, we has main- defendant, having tained innocence denied committed the any having knowledge concerning murder or it. justify
theWas evidence sufficient in law a ver- degree of first murder? dict jury part
A can all or believe or none of a de testimony testimony any fendant’s or of the wit for the ness Commonwealth or for defense: Com monwealth v. 378 Pa. A. 2d Kloiber, 422, 820; 412, Donough, v. Commonwealth 377 Pa. 103 A. 2d 46, 50, Homeyer, v. Commonwealth Pa. 94 A. 2d 694; 150, 743.
In v. Commonwealth 381 Pa. 113 A. 2d Bolish, 500, (pagе 508) by eye the Court said : “. . . Proof wit- 464, *8 corpus nesses or direct evidence of the delicti or of identity by or of the commission the defendant of the charged necessary. clearly crime It is ‘. . . set- may that a be tled man convicted on circumstantial may and a criminal intent be inferred alone, evidence jury by from facts circumstances which are the prove guilt beyond of a nature as to defendant’s such a reasonable doubt: v. 378 Pa. Commonwealth Kloiber, Homeyer, 2d v. 106 A. Commonwealth 820; 373 412, Lowry, 743; Pa. 94 A. 2d Commonwealth v. 374 150, 2d 98 A. Commonwealth Pa. v. 594, 600, 733; Danz, 211 Pa. 60 A. v. 1070; Commonwealth 507, Wentzel,
388 Garrison ex rel. A. 2d 309’: Commonwealth
360 Pa. 61 137, A. 2d 587.” Pa. 106 378 348, v . Burke, 344, 2dA. Pa. 123 v. 385 436, In Nasuti, Commonwealth is re : “. . . All that said 445) the (page Court 435, circumstantial, the evidence quired being is that, as reasonably be such proved should circumstances ac of the guilt an inference to justify naturally as to overcome quality such volume and and of cused, satisfy jury of innocence the presumption reasonable doubt: Com beyond the accused’s guilt 142 Pa. Superior 327, 334, v. Ct. Marino, monwealth Bausewine, Pa. 2d v. 354 317; 16 A. Commonwealth 314, 2d 368 493; 46 A. Commonwealth v. 35, 41, 491, Carey, A. 82 Commonwealth 242; Pa. 2d 164, 240, 157, 163, A. 2d 378 Pa. 106 828.” 412, v. Kloiber, 427, 820, v. In Commonwealth Donough, Pa., supra, : “A ‘rea- 51) said definitions of (page variety Court sonable all the same doubt’, expressing substantially approved appellate been have Courts— thought, v. 333 Pa. 2d 65, see Commonwealth 3 A. 398. Kluska, A form of approved charge point standard and on this defendant comes before would be: ‘The you presumed and the burden is upon to be innocent the Common- his guilt reasonable doubt. prove beyond wealth doubt cannot be a doubt A reasonable fancied or con- the minds to escape an un- jured up jury it must be an honest verdict; doubt pleasant arising kind itself, out the evidence doubt that would man woman) (or restrain a reasonable from acting (or to himself importance herself).”’ a matter of v. Bolish, In Commonwealth Pa., supra, : 524) “. . . false or (page said Court contradictory accused admissible are statements since the jury were they infer therefrom made with in- may an mislead or to suspicion tent to divert or police or to establish an alibi other authorities, innocence,
389
and hence are
v.
Commonwealth
indicatory
guilt:
374 Pa.
Lowry,
We reviewed evidence and as law we are required do the Act of February 15, 1870* “in order to determine whether the ingredients neces to constitute murder in sary the first have degree been proved to exist”: Commonwealth v. Leamer, 386 Pa. 126 409; A. 2d v. Commonwealth 485, 381 Thompson, 113 A. 2d 299, Pa. Commonwealth 274; v. 375 Bibalo, A. 2d Pa. 100 45. 257, Reviewing analyzing in evidence light above mentioned authori evidence sufficient ties, law to justify verdict jury’s murder the first guilty degree. Judgment sentence affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion Mb. Justice Musmanno: On an address as May 4, 1955, known Willow R. D. No. in Lancaster St., dead County, beaten Will severely was found body small one-room house in which he had lived (intermit- tently) with E. some Sauders for Mary twenty * 15, §2, P. L. PS §1187.
390 obligation. marriage No years ritual, ties, without Glasgow killed describe how came forth to witness profession- body, as the described but the condition of proof indisputable ally, gave a death caused of violent by had descended instrument which use of the blunt target. many on human times its discovery body, Mrs. hours after the Several custody by taken into the State Police Sauders was charged She tried, with murder. was indicted, and degree, murder in the first sen- and convicted of appealed imprisonment. this She has tenced to life presented by contending that evidence Court up did measure standard Commonwealth required by she law for conviction that, therefore, custody. discharged from should be by that evi- It is admitted Commonwealth against entirely Mrs. Sauders is circumstantial dence properly argues, that circumstantial evi- so, but it enough any may be sustain conviction of dence including degree. only first murder in the crime The question is whether the circumstances ac- case beyond tually satisfy mind a reasonable doubt that Glasgow. Mrs. killed Will Sauders justified concluding one is From the record that proved that Sauders and Glas- the Commonwealth together gow in a next door to house one owned lived p.m., May Leroy that about on Hilton; 3rd, Glasgow’s Hilton’s went to Harden, son-in-law, Thos. she Mrs. Sauders that was wanted on the house to tell telephone house; Hilton Harden saw Glas- gow he alive; and was that on at the time the follow- again Glasgow ing p.m., day at 2 he went to the house p.m., dead; that at about 9 :30 on and found previous night, May Mrs. Sauders had left the 3rd, in a taxicab driven James T. house Brown- direction and under her took instructions, who, she to numerous bars and cafes in Lanсaster where quantities consumed of alcoholic bever- considerable ages; displayed one three occasion $100 expensive paid bills and a bill; that she for the $50 gave Browning buy money drinks; taxi hire and morning that at 4:30 in at an address he left her he on South Water that several hours later Street; called for her and drove her around that she town; bought changed into a *11 new she went dress; purchased cemetery a memorial dealer and there placed grave a tombstone to be over the of her $115 during day that sometime she said that “Will son; [Glasgow] hemorrhaged had I think but don’t he сom- that she went Groff’s Funeral suicide”; mitted Glasgow’s body Home to which had been taken and A there was arrested the State Police. chem- while member of the State testified that some ist, Police, spots stains and on Mrs. Sauders’ dress and coat were questioned dried human blood. When about these spots, Mrs. Sauders told two different stories: one, spotted injuries that her dress had been from sustained by Glasgow in an automobile accident that and, two, had as a her dress been stained result of a severe nose- George bleed which suffered Avhena Streeter GlasgOAV questioned had struck with his fist. When money possession, in her about she had GlasgOAV given buy had said that her a Sauders $238 being questioned grave marker for her son. While on police subject money they she asked the of if Glasgow’s pocketbook. in found That not amount $105 pillow in in fact found a wallet under the Glas- gow’s bed. contends
The Commonwealth evidence proves Mrs. Sauders killed that she money. larceny obtain his If so in order to or did rob- object why' bery did homicide, shé not shrewdly Or leave that also take the did she $105? possible a a of amount in order rebut accusation robbery-murder ? unquestionably many
There are circumstances point mur- as the this case toward Mrs. Sauders which Glasgow. fall These circumstances derer Will heavy rain which envel- about her like a and violent opes country. One can see the structure house through but mist and sheets water the curtain of building say precision whether one cannot high, is constructed two or four stories whether it may its color wheth- be, what brick, stone, wood, say it is All is that it is inhabited or not. one can er presumably. money de- found The on the a house— conflicting spots and the dress, fendant, spots envelop defendant in all stories about the piece guilt, fog supposed but one mist together, her tо stand out taken cause or all evidence, person clearly distinctly who felled Glas- as the bloody gow murder. in a foul and money Glasgow gave story Mrs. Sauders’ *12 buy she in the fact that is confirmed to tombstone purchase actually Her statement a tombstone. did Browning she did not believe Glas- that the cab driver prompted, ex- gow suicide was had committed plained, by direc- the news received from funeral Glasgow was dead. that tor “It maintains in its that: brief
The Commonwealth argument way only that clear for is almost too spattered on defendant’s could have blood for the defendant have been coat was dress present time that the victim murdered.” gave explana- Mrs. Sauders that two recalled will be It spots appeared on her how blood as to tions Glasgow (1) had been an automobile that dress: Glasgow (2) had suffered a severe that accident (contra nosebleed. But neither of these admissions dictory other) prove pres to each would that she was Glasgow ent Glasgow when was killed.* could have by been murdered someone with or without Mrs. else, knowledge, Sauders’ and some of his blood attach to present being her dress without her at the time of the killing. pictures descriptions Since the body large quantities and bed reveal that lost impossible it is blood, assume that Mrs. Sauder could have wielded an instrument which broke the Glasgow’s dike of emerged life fluid and then have gory only slight from spattering flood with droplets clothing. on her The house which Glas gow and Sauders lived was not much better than a running shack and it had no water facilities. The State investigation Police gar uncovered no evidence that severely ments had been washed in the limited time laundering within which such could have been accom plished, namely, p.m., between 8 when seen Hardin alive and 9:30 whеn Mrs. Sauders left the habitation. It is to be observed further that the spattering droplets of blood on Mrs. Sauders’ dress inconspicuous though was so that she wore the dress evening night proceeded the entire as she from drinking place produced one to another no witness was suspicious say anything he had observed about Browning, clothing. Even the cab driver, noticed no spots garments although say blood he did they in numerous after had been taverns and cafes, places eight Sauders drank at one of which six to glasses she made the remark beer, her dress beer and soiled reason she had bеen wished *13 * any attempt shown nor made to show that It was not spots type on Mrs. Sauders’ dress were the same as the blood of. Glasgow’s blood. change hours after at least 15 it. But this occurred
to Glasgow’s house. she had left subject could Finally, chemist blood, on the the age spots which dress, on the the of the not estimate spots possibility attached had that the allows for the GlasgoAv’s long innocuously a time before to the dress hypothesis mur- Mrs. Sauders the death. While Glasgow law should excluded, to be the not dered permit to on the basis stand not conviction Glasgow. might possibility If killed have bare shе possibility accessibility criteria for to be the are people living establishing guilt, all the then Glasgow neighborhood and Avould house could be suspect. Glasgow last Between the time that be he Harden and the time was discovered seen alive enough expired, certainly long a time 18 hours dead, Mrs. to been committed without for the murder have knowledge. participation or Sauders’ guilt, considering basis of the evidence On the presented order Court, Sauders, Avhichwas do the would have to follow- crime, to commit p.m., p.m. Máy 3rd. At 8 8 and 9:30 between GlasgOAV pro- had to house and have leavе Avould telephone a Hilton house to answer call; to the ceed house and there Avield blunt return body times on the at least ten head instrument Glasgow; away instrument; do with the blunt resulting blood; wash, herself hide, cleanse go garments; again destroy bloody Hilton house telephone company the taxicab for 8:30 of 8:45 prepare house to and return to cab; Glasgow pri- night If she did kill- carousal. visiting for the second the Hilton house tele- or to accomplish then she had phone 8:30-8:45, call at concealing washing, killing, and all the other gory and do all this 8:45 and so éf- 9:30, between details
395 flciently most the Stаte Police with all their that investigat- detecting, and modern methods of skilled ing, searching, scrutinizing, unable to dis- were any in the house which would article or item cover killing. definitely This Mrs. connect Sauders with credible. it does not sound does not sound reasonable; required estab- is not to While the Commonwealth actually if show that lish for a murder it can motive deliberately, wilfully, did kill the victim the defendant aforethought, be assumed, it cannot and with malice capable many inter- the circumstances are where enough robbery pretations, be motive that would given any had not theretofore evidence who woman, accomplish kill- to a violent of homicidal tendencies, Al- and friend for or her benefactor $400 $500. posses- though money in Mrs. Sanders’ the amount considerable for one of her arrest was sion at the time apparent it seems that she was station of life, her night spending freely given before the fatal to even previ- Browning May on the testified that 1955. 3-4, up Saturday night Friday had run a taxi or ous bill of $17. that Mrs. Sauders and Glas- is no evidence
There night killing, quarreled gow there is no violently testimony behaved toward she had ever suggestion previous him is no there occasions, on hostility which could them between there existed reprisal vengeful urged act of violent into a have against him. conflicting Mrs. Sauders told stories which
The spots origin on her nei- the blood dress, about are def- fact, corroborated of which she ther one credibility. against initely While the evidence attempt required to to reconcile is not Commonwealth story exculpation, of. it an accused’s contradictions Sauders’ almost be noted is nevertheless 396
continuous from about 10 3rd p.m. May drinking 4 excep- until about p.m., following (with day could not tion of some hours given sleep) contributed a clear head for rе- thinking have making a short time after membering. Moreover, *15 had to taken the statements be contradictory for an appendicitis operation. hospital emergency as utterances, suspicion-provoking Thus, confusing a of self-in- can rise to they are, very high degree circum- positive crimination without some supporting is stance that neither of belief. story worthy irresponsible An indication which tongue fact from the gained formed utterances can be Mrs. Sauders said point at one her interrogation the entire blame for the killing that she would assume taxicab she hated see “Brownie driv- because [the ... he is to die.” No one accused burn too young er] and murder Browning] Brownie T. [James part not the intimation on slightest there was have implicated could been Browning anyone murder in any way. of mur- from all conviction apart this, However, told improbable cannot be based on stories der A man unarmed body accused. standing that an stabbed or shot can person say eagle freshly at his feet, the victim swooped strangled down on that prosecution still not be amenable to criminal fabricated obviously story. be murder as law must that a may
Regretful moment) disappointed for the (at go unpunished, least a person feel that as- intimately as even society might and the events surrounding victim sociated with no escape condemnation, system should his death, should the name could or al- jurisprudence worthy is legal proof stand when missing, a conviction to low suspicious are lacking, circumstances corroborating guess, speculation,. particulars realm of remain and surmise. depended evidence alone
When circumstantial upon a character it must be of such for conviction, points unequivocally A alone. it in one direction op- points roadsign cross-highways in two which posite geographical destination directions for the same fingers accusing is valueless. Evidence which levels person guilty people only one can be at several when hurricane. is as as a vane in a Cir- worthless weather very of evidence can be the best cumstantial evidence trustworthy conclusion to establish an accurate bridge crossing it rests stream, like a a wide when, away by piers be on solid cannot washed which slightest inquiry, under will not crumble current of apart testing, fall be- hammer and will not blows of building material. in the causе of inherent weakness bridge piers does the of conviction On kind of what *16 in this case rest? says robbery. it was
Motive? The Commonwealth begins find as a test, When the hammer we money did not take all the which robber Sauders We find further that her was available to her hand. buy Glasgow gave money story a tomb- in fact. And we for her son was corroborated stone spent large money sums of find further that killing. fares even before taxicab pier.is Accessibility the crime? This to commit Although neighbors they of all. testified weakest during night noises after Mrs. heard no unusual Glasgow’s they neither did left hear house, Sauders according any noises to the when, unusual Common- committing the crime. Mrs. Sauders was There wealth, was dead no evidence when Mrs. was pass his and some 18 hours house, left were to Sauders discovered in all of dead, which time the before he by someone other committed have been murder could Mrs. Sauders. than committing the used in instrument
Evidence of Nothing connect found would which murder? instrument which blunt assumed with the Mrs. Sauders killing. accomplished the fragmentary incriminating
Mutely evidence? The spots dress could have come Sauders’ on Mrs. of blood ways many his blood contact from having a murderous been due to the contact without attack. upholding bridge solidly pier remains
aNot crossing bridge, over on Instead of conviction. suspicion leaps prosecution theory from stones of assumption from stones of of surmise, stones enough argumentation. This is not to take stones enough penitentiary person any for life. It not ato salutary system any conviction under our to sustain guilt specifically must be established states that which doubts in beyond doubt. The this case a reasonable envelop They pros- only the entire reasonable. are not uncertainty in- in clouds conviction ecution and and should a conviction cannot Such decision. stand.
I dissent. Corporation City v. Products Bennett Brothers,
Appellant.