Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

The Morning Press

Bloomsburg, PA, Friday, September 19, 1919

Court Directs Acquittal Ralph Carl After Commonwealth Failed to Make Out a Case

Not a Scintilla of Evidence Produced to Show That Joseph Carl Did Not Take His Own Life--Corporal Stevenson Was Grilled by James Scarlet

Ralph Carl, in jail since April on the charge of murdering his father, Joseph Carl, in the latter’s home on the night of April 12, was freed yesterday of the charge within six hours after the taking of testimony, in the case began. The Court directed a verdict of not guilty upon motion of James Scarlet, counsel for the defendant, immediately upon the completion of the Commonwealth’s case and without the defense offering any testimony. The termination of the case was no surprise to the public for it was apparent before trial was very far along that there was no evidence fixing the crime on Ralph Carl, and that the Commonwealth had no case.

No sooner was the verdict directed by the Court than Carl warmly shook the hands of his counsel and some of the jurymen and was then quickly surrounded by many of his friends who were quick to extend their congratulations. But the happiest of all was the plucky little wife who had been steadfast in her devotion, and who with their little child, was in court throughout the day, the latter, doll in hand, upon one occasion toddling over to her father and taking her place on his lap, where she remained for some time.

The work of securing the jury progressed much more rapidly than it did the day before when counsel could allow themselves wider attitude in their challenges. Thirty-five minutes were all that was required to secure the three jurors needed to fill the box.

It was exactly 9:35 o’clock when the jury which was to decide Carl’s fate was sworn and District Attorney Sharpless opened the Commonwealth’s case.

The three men accepted yesterday morning in completing the jury were:

W. B. Goodhart, Catawissa; C. W. Cole, Jackson township and W. H. Neyhard, Orangeville.

Others called were Ray Artman, Bloomsburg, challenged by the defendant; Orval Everett, excused because he was a witness on another case; Clarence Rider, Locust, challenged peremptorily by the defendant; H. E. Kern excused because he was a witness in another case; Jerry Artley, challenged peremptorily ; Bruce Sneidman, Almedia, challenged for cause and W. H. Fisher, Bloomsburg, challenged for cause.

In opening District Attorney Sharpless stated that the defendant, Ralph Carl, was charged with the murder of Joseph Carl in Catawissa township, on the night of April 12. The contention of the Commonwealth, he stated, is that the son, Ralph Carl, committed the crime and for that reason he was on trial. The District Attorney admitted their evidence was largely circumstantial, but he believed it was of such a character as would support their contention that the son was guilty of first degree murder. The murdered man, he declared, lived on his farm in Catawissa township and with him lived his daughter, Marcella and a grandson, Orval. Ralph, the defendant, he stated lived only a short distance away, a quarter of a half mile. On the day preceding the commission of the crime Joseph Carl had been to Bloomsburg, returning between eight and nine o’clock and that evening his daughter, Marcella and grandson, Orval started for Bloomsburg and met Joseph Carl upon his return. They returned home together shortly before midnight and upon entering the house it was to find the father and grandfather seated in a chair with his head resting on his breast and with a bullet wound through his head. From the safe about $300 in money was missing.

They would connect Ralph Carl, he stated, with the killing and with the disappearance of the money because of the fact that Ralph was in need of money and only the day before his father had refused to longer endorse a $300 note for him unless he reduced the principal. Then he detailed how they would prove the finding of the missing money in a stone wall of the farm of Roy Bitler after the defendant had stopped there on his way to the Shenandoah market while his father still lay cold in death . They would prove, too, he stated, the presence of a Mexican dollar bill among that money and which had been in the safe from which the other money was taken. They would show that Carl, upon his arrival at the Bitler home, recognized the automobile of the State Police officer and that he then secreted the money, with his first exclamation when place under arrest: “I have no money.” They would also bring out he stated that after officer Stevenson had arrested Carl, he directed Ralph Bitler to run Carl’s truck in the barn, and that two $5 bills and two $10 bills were found under the straw in the truck. They expected to show, too, he sated by evidence that was largely circumstantial, but good evidence nevertheless, that the son had killed his father, rifled the safe of close to $300 and then left.

The taking of testimony was slightly delayed because of the non-arrival of Dr. R. O. Davis, acting coroner, who conducted the inquest and found it homicide. Upon direct examination the physician testified to the bullet entering the victim’s head just above the right ear and coming out an inch or so above the left ear. The hair, he testified, was scorched around where the ball entered.

He thought an inquest necessary because there were certain conditions that convinced him it might not be a suicide.

Dr. Davis’s cross-examination was very painful to him and he came in for about a half hour’s grilling at the hands of James Scarlet, although the latter insisted he was only eager to get at the facts of the case. The lawyer refreshed the memory of the witness as to the bones in the head through which the bullet passed. While latter could not tell which lobes of the brain had been punctured.

Dr. Davis explained that he didn’t see the clothing as that had been removed before he arrived, while he knew very little about the position of the body and that sort of think interrogated on the question of whether the location of the bullet in the ceiling did not indicate the shot might easily have been self-inflicted. Dr. Davis stated he was not an expert on pistol shots.

After numerous questions had developed the fact that the acting coroner knew very little about the whole case and had made practically no inquires he was asked:

“You have made no special study of them?”

“No, sir. I was uncertain then and I am now,” the witness supplemented, “that it was a case of suicide.”

UNDERTAKER’S TESTIMONY

Undertaker, William Berninger, of Catawissa, had a clearer idea of all the circumstances connected with the affair than anybody else, and told of having been called to the Carl home and of finding Carl dead in the rocking chair. This was early on Sunday morning, and Ralph, his wife, Marcella Carl, Orval Carl and John Krum were there. He found a bullet through Carl’s head and saw powder marks on his hair. Later he rook the lantern which lighted the room and then found the revolver lying on the floor directly under Carl’s hand and which had previously been hidden by the shadows. One chamber of the revolver was empty. Later, a revolver was produced in evidence, and while Mr. Berninger thought it resembled the revolver he found in the Carl home he couldn’t positively identify it as he was no expert on revolvers. It was soon after, he stated, that Joseph Carl came over from Bloomsburg.

Upon cross-examination he stated that he was called to the Carl home by Ralph Carl and that when he got there he found the body in a chair that faced the door. The chair was placed about six inches from a book case, and the witness stated that Carl could easily have taken a reclining position, with his elbow on the book case when the shot was fired. The dead man’s feet were crossed and one arm was hanging down when he first saw the body which was resting in an easy position. Carl’s head was not turned but hung slightly over with the chin on his breast. He found one empty cartridge pin, the revolver, while there was some blood on the rocker, which had not yet reached the floor. The hole in the ceiling and the position of the body corresponded, he stated, while Marcella had told him, that was the position in which she found the body. The only change she had made was in removing her father’s glasses.

Asked if he hadn’t stated it was a case of suicide, he at first didn’t recollect, but finally stated that when he had used that expression in the Carl home after he arrived, Marcella had said to him “Don’t call it suicide, don’t you call it that.”

He took the keys out of the dead man’s pocket and the safe key was included among the number. His attention was attracted to the safe key because of its unusual size, and he was then informed the key was the key to the safe. The keys were also fastened to a suspender button. There was nothing unusual about Ralph’s conduct that night, he declared, and Ralph helped carry the body upstairs and helped undress the body. The witness remained at the house until almost noon and Marcella told them that she had found everything in complete order about the house. He remembered having asked her that question.

GRANDSON TESTIFIED

Orval Carl, the grandson, gave a strong bit of testimony for the defendant when he testified he had heard no conversation the night preceding the finding of the body between the defendant and his father. He had last seen the contents of the safe about a month before the tragedy and there was ten something over $100 in the safe- nothing less than $5’s and mostly $10’s and $20’s. These were in a pocket-book along with notes and a Mexican dollar bill.

Upon cross-examination he testified that the doors of the house were not locked when Marcella and he left for town on the night of the tragedy. The lamp was on the window sill unlighted. When they entered the house upon their return it was to find the body of their father and grandfather. The witness called to him but got no answer while Marcella, as she stood in the doorway, declared he was dead. He described the position in which the body was found, corroborating the other witnesses, and then testified to having gone to Ralph’s house, where he found the defendant in his kitchen. The latter telephoned for the doctor and then undertaker, and then went over to his father’s house. He stated that the body was close enough to the shelf of the book case for his grandfather to have leaned over and rested his arm on the shelf if he had tired the shot and chosen to do so. He also admitted having heard Marcella say to Mr. Berninger that she didn’t want it called a case of suicide when Mr. Berninger illustrated how it could have been done. He hadn’t had access to the safe within a month and didn’t know whether on the night of the death there was any money in the safe of not. Marcella, he stated, was in Texas and had been there since May.

AFTERNOON SESSION

With the opening of the afternoon session the grandson, Orval Carl was recalled by the Commonwealth. Replying to the queries of District Attorney Sharpless, he testified that he made an investigation of the floor around the chair in which his grandfather’s body was found and that he discovered the revolver lying at the side of the chair beneath the old man’s right hand. It was a .38 caliber gun and was somewhat rusty. A revolver was submitted by the district attorney and was identified as that which was found lying alongside the chair.

On cross-examination Mr. Scarlet elicited the information that the identification of the revolver was made possible by a notch broken out of the handle. The witness stated that it was beyond question the property of his grandfather and was kept in the safe which was usually locked. Young Carl stated that he had not had access to the safe on the night of the shooting and that a number of persons have had access to the safe since the body was found. Marcella was the first to find the safe looked, he stated. Later Joseph, Fred, Ralph and himself had gone to the safe and finding it locked, he procured the key from his grandfather’s pocket and unlocked the safe. His father’s revolver was not in the safe and he was positive that the gun found lying on the floor at the side of the dead body, was the property of his grandfather.

Ira C. Stevenson, chief witness for the Commonwealth and prosecutor in the case, was then called. Mr. Stevenson testified that he is corporal of the state constabulary at Berwick and had charge of the investigation of the alleged murder of Joseph Carl at the instigation of District Attorney Warren Sharpless.

Mr. Scarlet interposed an objection at this point in the proceedings. He objected to any testimony that might be introduced on the grounds that it had not been shown by the Commonwealth that a crime was committed and before any testimony could be offered connecting the defendant with the crime, the crime must first be proven. The objection to the testimony of Corporal Stevenson was overruled by the Court.

With Mr. Sharpless conducting the investigation stated that he was first called on the case on the Sunday night, following the finding of the body, April 13. He went to the Carl farm on Monday morning, April 14, and found Joseph, Ralph, Marcella and Orval at the home. He conducted an investigation of the premises went in the house, examined the kitchen where the body was found, blood stains on the floor near where the chair stood and found the bullet in the ceiling over the kitchen stove. Going upstairs to the room over the kitchen he found that the bullet did not penetrate through the floor and while making his investigation there Ralph and Joseph, with the aid of a screw driver, recovered the bullet from the room below. Ralph brought the bullet up to him. The bullet was offered in evidence by the Commonwealth and was identified by the witness as that which had been recovered from the ceiling. It was a .38 short bullet. Asked by the district attorney whether it fitted into the shell extracted from the revolver he replied that in his judgment it did not. To this testimony Mr. Scarlet objected on the grounds that the witness was not competent to testify. The objection was sustained. He testified that he made an examination of the revolver and found that it had been recently fired. An examination of the body showed the bullet hole through the head.

WENT TO BITLER HOME

Following his investigation on the 14th he came to Bloomsburg, talked the case over with Mr. Sharpless and then returned to his home in Berwick. Later in the evening on April 15th he testified that he received a telephone message from Chief of Police W. J. Brobst, of town, to come to Bloomsburg that he (the Chief) had some information to impart. He came to Bloomsburg and met the chief. After the consultation he went to the farm of Roy Bitler in Main township arriving there about 4:50 a.m. on the morning of the 16th. Mr. Bitler had retired and he called him from his bed. Telling Mr. Bitler that he was going to arrest Ralph Carl, who was to call at the Bitler place at two o’clock for some pigs, he took his station in the kitchen and waited for two o’clock but it was nearly four o’clock before the witness testified he was the headlights of an automobile approaching from the road.

On arriving Carl blew his horn for Bitler several times, before the latter who was stationed upstairs answered from a window. In the meantime Carl drove to the barn, stepped out of his car and walked to the barn and came back to his car and then walked in the direction of the corn crib. All this took five or seven minutes, the witness stated. Corporal Stevenson, according to his testimony, remained on the front porch where he had gone upon Carl’s arrival. As he entered the house the officer followed him. Stepping up within a few feet of Carl he said, “Ralph, I want you.” The witness testified that in reply Carl declared. “I have no money except $2.” He was taken in custody by the witness and brought to Bloomsburg and Bitler was told to conduct a search for the money. Before leaving, however, a search was made of the automobile but nothing was found except the lid of a tea box.

FOUND MONEY IN TRUCK

Stevenson then went on to testify that after bringing his prisoner to Bloomsburg and locking him up, he went to Berwick. At 10 o’clock the same morning he returned to Bloomsburg and went over to the Bitler farm. On his arrival there Bitler turned over to him $30--two $10 bills and two $5 bills-- which Bitler declared he found in the box of Carl’s truck just a short time before. The remainder of the tea box was found near the pig pen with the lid fitting the box. Stevenson testified he took the box and the $30 and returned to Berwick.

The next day he returned to Bitler’s farm and continued his investigation. He searched the pig pen, corn crib, wagon shed and barn without success. He returned home but received an urgent phone call from Bitler later in the day went back. He was met by Bitler who told him to go back of the wagon shed and look under a rock. This he did and there found in a crevice between the rocks a roll of bills, aggregating in all $258 in denominations of $1, $5, $10 and $20 bills and a Mexican bill, called a peso. The district attorney proffered the Mexican bill for the witness’ identification and it was established as the one which he found in the roll.

HAD NO WARRANT

On cross examination Corporal Stevenson stated that he was in charge of the detachment of state police at Berwick and that he laid the information charging Ralph Carl with shooting his father. When the arrest was made on April 17, he admitted no arrant had been issued and that other than the order from the district attorney none other had been given for him to make the investigation.

On the 13th he received his order to make an investigation. On the following morning he went to the Carl home where he met Orval, Joseph, Ralph and Marcella Carl.

Asked as to where Marcella was at the present time he state he didn’t know. Under severe questioning, however, he admitted hearing that she had gone to Texas. He admitted that he had made no effort to have her come to Bloomsburg for the trial and had not subpoenaed her.

He had been shown the position of Mr. Carl at the time his body was found. Defendant’s exhibit, No.1, a photograph of the kitchen where the body was found, was produced showing the position of the chair when the body was discovered. He identified the room and testified that the location of the chair as found in the photo, was correct. The chair, he testified, was standing alongside the cupboard, about six inches distant. He admitted that he had made no measurements in the room whatever. The bullet through the aged man’s head, he stated, entered at the right ear and passed out of the left side of his head about an inch and a half in front and above the left ear and plowed its way through the ceiling. He said the right arm was hanging at the side, the feet crossed and his other hand resting on the arm of the chair.

NO TROUBLE IN FAMILY

From his conversation with the family there had been no trouble between Mr. Carl or any of his sons or daughters. The lamp, when the body was discovered, was standing on the book case but he couldn’t remember whether lighted or not. His investigation had showed that Carl reached home about 8 o’clock on the night of the shooting, this information coming from Orval and Marcella.

He denied emphatically that the investigation was made at the instance of the brothers and sisters of the accused but, he stated, at the instance of Chief Brobst.

Questioned further about the safe he said that Marcella told him Joseph had access to the safe shortly after the discovery of the body. He denied that Marcella admitted being in the safe. Marcella also told him that Fred had opened the safe and rummaged its contents. He had been told that Orval’s stocking, which was left lying near the safe when Orval left for Bloomsburg on the night of the shooting, was found inside the safe when it was opened after the dead body was found. He couldn’t account for this and when Mr. Scarlet asked whether he made any investigation as to how the sock got in the safe, admitted that he had not. Neither did he inquire or investigate as to whether Orval or Marcella had any money. He was asked whether he had examined the safe to ascertain whether it could be opened by means other than the lock and admitted that he had not. However, he said the lock was old-fashioned and could have been picked. That Marcella was alone with the body for a half hour after its discovery when Orval left her to inform the brothers, did not concern him. He did not question Marcella at all as to her actions during this period.

“Where was Fred at the time of the shooting?” asked Mr. Scarlet.

“I don’t know,” replied the corporal.

“Where was Joseph Jr. at the time of the supposed murder?” asked the senior counsel for the defense.

“I don’t know,” again admitted the investigator.

He also admitted that he hadn’t subpoenaed Fred for the trial. He didn’t know where Fred was on the Wednesday night that he waited for Ralph at Bitler’s home and didn’t find any money other than the bills, although Mr. Scarlet reminded him that it was common knowledge there had been several hundred dollars in gold coins inside the safe. He found several notes against Fred in the safe couldn’t remember for what amounts or whether they were paid, judgment or promissory notes.

Questioned by Mr. Scarlet as to the whether on the night of the 15th and morning of the 16th, he said it was very dark, windy and rather misty. He stood on the porch of the Bitler home about 75 yards from where his auto was parked, Ralph arrived about 3:50 a.m. Asked by Mr. Scarlet why he didn’t arrest Ralph when he stepped out of the car he replied that is was against his arrangements.

AUDIENCE CONVULSED

“You’re a liar!” issued a voice from the defendant’s table and everyone, counsel included got a start to see Ralph Carl half raised from his chair, a look of intense hatred on his face. Mr. Scarlet remonstrated with him, told him he knew the witness was lying and he resumed his chair. The outburst of the accused man came as a surprise to everyone as heretofore he took the attitude of only an interested spectator. Throughout Corporal Stevenson’s testimony, however and particularly when telling of the incidents at Bitler’s farm, he closely watched the witness.

Stevenson admitted asking the defendant many times on the journey to Bloomsburg where he had hidden the money and whether he killed his father, and also continued his investigations at the lock-up.

THE THIRD DEGREE

“In your crude way you were trying to secure a confession from your prisoner?” Scarlet interjected.

“Yes, if you call it crude,” replied Stevenson.

The investigation of the truck was made with the aid of a common lantern he explained and nothing was found but the lid to the tea box. Ten or fifteen minutes were required to examine the truck, but nothing was found.

When Mr. Carl was buried on April 17th Stevenson admitted Ralph asked to be allowed to attend the funeral, but was refused. He admitted trying to force a confession at the jail, but denied telling the prisoner he would have him hanged. He also denied telling Carl he could not employ counsel.

When he placed Carl under arrest he admitted taking several account books from his pockets and a pocket knife. He didn’t take the $2.10, however. Mr. Scarlet thought he was very generous. He admitted handcuffing his prisoner to bring him to the lock-up.

The witness, although his memory failed him at first, finally admitted sitting in a chair and demonstrating to Marcella, Joseph Jr. and others how the homicide or suicide was committed. He denied that he told them it was a plain case of suicide.

DIDN’T EXAMINE CLOTHING

The face of the deceased, he said was burned and powder marked, indicating the shot had been fired at close range. He admitted failing to examine Ralph’s clothing at the time of his arrest to ascertain whether there were any blood stains on it, nor did he do so at Ralph’s home when he carried his investigations there. Mrs. Ralph Carl, when he conducted his search at the home of the accused, showed him $14 and a revolver, belonging to her husband and some shells. Mr. Scarlet again thought Stevenson displayed generosity when he confessed he had not taken the money.

Here Mr. Scarlet released Stevenson from further cross-examination.

ROY BITLER CALLED

Roy Bitler, of Main township, was then called. He testified that he was present when Ralph was placed under arrest by Stevenson and accompanied the men to the truck when the search of the truck was made. Nothing was found, however, although a search of about 15 minutes was conducted. After Stevenson left with his prisoner Bitler said he backed the truck alongside the barn. About ten o’clock in the morning he but the truck in the barn after it had started to rain. Working around the truck he noticed a bill laying on top of the straw in the bottom of the truck. The bill was lying loosely, crumpled up, as though it had been thrown there. Kicking in the straw with his foot he uncovered another $10 bill and two $5 bills. He notified Stevenson and when he arrived turned the money over to him. Stevenson and he made a thorough investigation on the following morning. Nothing was found the next day but on Friday, together with his brother-in-law, Bitler made another search of the premises. Behind a stone at the corner of the wagon shed, his brother-in-law found a wad of money, but without touching or disturbing it, Stevenson was called and notified of the success.
When Stevenson arrived he took the money from behind the rock and counting it found $358 in $1, $5, $10 and $20 bills also a Mexican Peso. The Commonwealth then turned the witness over to Mr. Scarlet.

AFRAID OF CARL

“Why did Stevenson remain in the house the night he arrested Carl?” the first question shot by Mr. Scarlet.

“Stevenson told me to try and get him in the house because he didn’t want to meet him in the dark alone,” replied the witness. It took several minutes for the tipstaff to restore order after this reply.

HELPED DEFENDANT

Mr. Bitler then cleared up the mystery of Ralph’s visit to the pig pen on the night of his arrest. He stated that Ralph was to get the pigs out of the pen and they were to be weighed on a set of scales standing in the pen. When Bitler arrived at the pig pen the scales were on the outside and a crate that Ralph brought with him in the truck was standing alongside the scales, showing what Ralph had been engaged in while at the pen. From the pig pen and from the truck to the spot where the money was found, he testified, was a distance of about 25 feet. The defense offered as evidence a photograph showing the position of the Bitler barn and outbuildings.

Continuing his testimony Mr. Bitler stated that when Ralph entered the house, Stevenson was still on the porch, but followed him in the kitchen and told Carl that he wanted him. He did not tell him why he wanted him, the witness stated. In answer to a question of the officer Ralph said he had no money.

FRED CARL PASSED

About 5 o’clock that same morning Mr. Bitler said he saw Fred Carl pass along the road with his car, but he couldn’t pass within reach of the truck which was at least 40 feet from the road. The truck was standing out openly, however, where anyone could have put money. No other vehicle passed along the road that morning so far as he knew.

Orval Carl was again recalled by the Commonwealth to identify the Mexican bill. A bill was shown him by District Attorney Sharpless, but he couldn’t identify it positively as that belonging to his grandfather and which was kept with the money in the safe and later found in the wall.

STEVENSON TALKED WITH BROTHERS

The next witness called by the defense was W. J. Brobst, chief of police in Bloomsburg. The chief told of his connection with the investigation and under cross examination testified that about 11 o’clock on the night of Carl’s arrest he was approached by Joseph Carl who asked him to get into communication with Corporal Stevenson at Berwick and have him come to Bloomsburg at once. This he did. When Stevenson arrived he talked with Joseph and Fred Carl in the council room at the town hall. After the conference Stevenson left for the Bitler home.

William Hidlay, cashier of the Bloomsburg National Bank, was the last witness called by the Commonwealth. On January 14, 1919, he testified, Ralph Carl, with his father’s endorsement, borrowed $396 from the bank on a ten day not. The note was paid off on January 22, two days before due.

Here the Commonwealth rested its case.

ASKED VERDICT “NOT GUILTY”

Mr. Scarlet addressing the Court, stated that no evidence of crime had been shown and there was not sufficient evidence to send the cast to the jury to determine whether the defendant was guilty of any offense whatsoever. He asked that the Court direct the jury to return a verdict of “not guilty.”

He cited a number of briefs to substantiate his motion and in his eloquent plea to the court many of the audience were moved to tears while the defendant was plainly moved. He said in part:

“My appearance in the cause is due to the fact that the defendant’s case was entrusted to a very dear friend of mine who has passed away. Doubtless had he been here the defendant would have been more capably represented than he has. I know that had I been representing the defendant on such a charge as this and the defendant had been left helpless, my friend would have done the some for me.

CRIME OF PARASITES

“This woman said to the State Constabulary investigator ‘don’t find this a case of suicide’ Why did she say this? Because she didn’t want a stain on the family name. But which would leave the greater stain? Suicide with the old gentleman passing away peacefully and the incident soon forgotten or homicide, which as had been the case here, has been given the widest notoriety and leaves a stain which will be long time in blotting out. It is not a crime for a man to take his life when the burden of life are to great he cannot bear them. Neither can it be said that he is out of his mind when the act was committed. But this woman is absent and allowed to escape.

“The brothers, where are they? They are absent. Is it a disgrace to stand by a brother when faced by the hangman’s noose, the electric chair? Their absence furnishers a motive. A real investigator would have run out all the threads if they lead to a motive.

WANT FAIR INVESTIGATION

“The Commonwealth must not only show the dead body but they must show death resulted from criminal action. The Commonwealth has not shown this. We want a fair investigation for our defendant. We want no suspicion to rest against hi. He has suffered enough through his confinement on the merest suspicion.

“The only competent witness called by the Commonwealth to establish suicide or homicide was the coroner and how did he leave it? He left it stating he didn’t know whether it was homicide or suicide.

“It is not possible and has not been shown that the would could not have been self-inflicted. The old man’s position speaks eloquently of suicide. Death ended it all and it was by his own hand. The time may come to all of us when the burdens become so great that we seek an easy exit to our Maker and our Maker shall determine whether it is crime.

“The Commonwealth has attempted to show robbery as the motive for crime. But the defendants presence was not shown and it is inconceivable to think of a son stealing upon his aged father and murdering him for the paltry sum of $358.”

CONTENT WITH COURT’S ACTION

Mr. Sharpless on behalf of the Commonwealth, stated it is not his duty to demand victims, but that his duty was to bring before the Court and jury all the evidence secured. The prosecution, he stated, was started at the behest of parties interested. He was content with any action the Court might take on the motion made to the Court by Mr. Scarlet counsel for the defense.

In ordering a verdict of “not guilty” the Court addressed himself to the jury as follows:

“ The defendant, Ralph Carl, stands indicted and has been tried with the crime of murder in the first degree, his father the victim, on April 12, 1919. Before the Commonwealth could ask a conviction it would be necessary for them to prove that death was inflicted by some criminal agency or means. In this case the Commonwealth has failed. As elicited from Dr. Davis, the undertaker, the Commonwealth leaves the question as to whether Joseph Carl came to death by suicide or homicide.

“That being true we would not allow you to draw inferences as to the means of death. If you returned a verdict of guilty we would set it aside.

“The motive of the Commonwealth was financial trouble, but the testimony did not bear out this motive. The Commonwealth depended on circumstantial evidence and it has no measured up.

DEATH MAY NEVER BE SOLVED

“It is unfortunate that the question of Joseph Carl’s death may never be solved. We think the district attorney acted properly, however, in bringing this case to trial. It is better for Carl and his family that the stain should be removed by a verdict of the jury.

“I direct you to do what you can to remove this stain and render a verdict of “not guilty”

To the question of John F. Watson, clerk of court, to whether guilty or not guilty a chorus of “not guilty” issued from the jury box and Ralph Carl was again a free man.