
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    
    UDDERZOOK v. THE COMMONWEALTH.
    A photograph proved to have been taken from life, and to resemble the person photographed, may be used upon a trial for murder to indentify him, though like all other evidences of indenlity, it is open to disproof or doubt, and must be determined by the jury.
    Error to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Chester County
   Opinion delivered July 2, 1874, by

Agnew, C. J.

This is, indeed, a strange case; a combination by two to cheat insurance companies, and a murder of one by the other to reap the fruit of the fraud. Winfield Scott Goss, an inhabitant of Baltimore, had insured his life to the amount of $25,000.

He was last seen at his shop on the York road, a short distance from Baltimore, on the evening of the 2d of February, 187Z, in company with William E. Udderzook, his brother-in-law, the prisoner, and a young man living near. They left him to go to the house of the young man’s father, in a short time the shop was discovered to be on fire. After it was burned down a body was drawn out of the fire, supposed to be that of Goss. Claims were make upon the insurance companies, the prisoner being active in prosecuting them. On the 30th of June, 1873, the prisoner and a stranger, a man indentified as Alexander C. Wilson, appeared at Jennersviile, in Chester county, in this State, and remained over night and the next day. In the evening, July 1st, the prisoner and this stranger left Jennersviile together in a buggy. Next day, on being met, and asked what had become of his companion, the prisoner said he had left him at Parkersburg. On the nth of July, the body of a man indentified on the trial as W. S. Goss or A. C. Wilson, was found in Baer’s woods, about ten miles from Jennersville, the head and trunk buried in a shallow hole, in one place, and the arms and legs in another. The stranger who was with the prisoner at Jennersville, inden-tified as A. C. Wilson, was traced from place to place, living in retirement, from June 22d, 1872, until within a day or two of the time when he appeared with the prisoner at Jennersville. During this interval this prisoner and Wilson were seen together several times under circumstances indicaitng great intimacy and privacy. Wilson has not been seen or heard of since July 1st, 1873, when he left Jennersville in company with the prisoner. The great question in the case was the indentity of A. C. Wilson as' W. S. Goss. This was established by a variety of circumstances and many witnesses, leaving no doubt that Goss and Wilson were the same person, and that the body found in Baer’s woods, was that of Goss. All the bills of exceptions except one, relate to this question of indentity., the most material being those relating to the use of a photograph of Goss. This photograph, taken in Baltimore on the same place with a gentleman named Langley, was clearly proved by him, and also by the artist who took it. Many objections were made to the use of this photograph, the chief being to the admission of it to indentify Wilson as ent. That a portrait or a miniature painted from life, and proved to resemble the person, may be sure to indentify him, cannot be doubted, though Goss; the prisoner’s council Regarding this use of it as certainly incompet-lilte all other evidences of indentity it is open to disproof or doubt, and must be determined by the jury. There seems to be no reason why a photograph, proved to be taken from life and to resemble the person photographed, should not fill the same measure of evidence. It is true, the photographs we see are not the original likenesses their lines are not traced by the hand of the artist, nor can the artist be called to testify that he faithfully limned the portrait. They are but paper copies taken from the original plate called the negative, made sensitive by chemicals and printed by the sunlight through the camera. It is a result of art guided by certain principals of science. In the case before us such a photograph of the man Goss was presented to a witness who had never seen him, so far as he knew, but who had seen a man known to him as Wilson. The purpose was to show that Goss and Wilson were one and the same person. It is evident that the competency of the evidence in such a case depends on the reliability of the photograph as a work of art, and this, in the case before us, in which no proof was made by experts of this reliability, must depend upon the judicial cognizance we may take of photography as an established means of procuring a correct likeness. The daguerrian process was first given to the world in 1836. Itwassoon followed by photography, of which we have had nearly a generations experience. It has become a customary and a common mode of taking and preserving views as well as the likenesses of a person, and has obtained universal assent to the correctness of its deliniations. We know that its principles are derived from science ; that the images on the plate made by the rays of light^through the camera are dependent on the same general laws which produce the images of outward forms upon the retina, through the lenses of the eye. The process has become one in general use, so common we cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it as a proper means of pro-ducting correct likenesses. But happily the proof of indentity in this case does not depend on the photograph alone.

Letters from Wilson, indentified as the handwriting of Goss; a peculiar ring, belonging to Goss, worn upon the finger of Wilson ; the recognition by Wilson of A. C. Goss as his brother; • packages addressed to A. C. Goss, and envelopes bearing the marks of the firm with which W. S. Goss had been employed, coming and going to and from Baltimore; and many other circumstances followiñg up the man Wilson, leave no doubt of his indentity as Goss, independently of the photograph. The objection to the proof of Goss’ habits of intoxication is equally untenable. True, the habit is common to many, and alone would have little weight, but habits are a means of indentification, though with strength in proportion to their peculiarity. The weight of the habit was a matter for the jury. It is unnecessary to follow the bills of exceptions in detail. They all relate to facts and circumstances bearing on the question of indentity. If the bills of exception are many they only denote that the circumstances were numerous, and in this multiplication consists the strength of the proof They are many links in a chain'so long that it encircles the prisoner in a double fold. The questions put to G. P. Moore, A. H. Barintz, and A. R. Carter, were unobjectionable. Whether they really could not in-dentify the dark and swollen face of the corpse, it was not for the court to decide. Its weight belonged to the jury. There was no error in permitting the jury, after their return into the court for further instructions, to take out with them at their own request, the check, due bill and applications for insurance papers, which had been proved, read in evidence, and commented on in- the trial. The appearance, contents, and handwriting of these documents were no doubt important and to be inspected by the jury, who could not be expected to carry all these features in their minds. It is customary in murder cases to permit the jury to take out for their examination the clothing worn by the deceased, exhibiting its condition, the rents made in it, the instrument of death, and all things proved and given in evidence bearing on the commission of the offence.

We discern- no error in this record, and therefore affirm the sentence and judgment of the court below, and order this record to be remitted or execution.  