The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1838-02-10
Number AZ.

the court that this is the talr construction
to be putupon the prisoners language.
Again--Jacob Turner states that the
prisoner told him that his wife had "dis-
missed him as a murderer" and the priso-
ner added-'I suppose am murderer"
1t would be exceedingly unjust if a hasty
declaration of the prisoner should give
character TO his offence at variance with the
conclusion of law upon the actual facts of
the transaction as proved by witnesses who
were present. The injustice of this would
be more glaring in case of this kind where,
as the jury have seen, the learning of all
the counsel has been called into requsition
in order to fix name for this offence, and
that they have not yet fully agreed upon its
name and character. How then can an un-
learned man, like the prisoner, be expected,
in moment, to give it the appropriate ap-
pellation. If the tactS of the case do not
show it TO be murder, the declarations of
the prisoner afterwards will not make it so.
As an illustration of this will mention
case to the jury: A young man was carrying
a the night and stabbed his adversary with a
sum of money was attacked by robber In
pen knife SO that he fell to the gronnd but
was not killed. Before the result of the
injury was known, the individual who thus
defended himself under circumstances not
only commendable but justifable, labored
under the mistaken opinion that all killing
was murder, and believed that this would
be the legal view to be taken of the act,
if death should ensue. / can vouch for the
facts of this case as well as for the mistaken
notions entertained in regard to its charac-
ter, and the instance serves to show that
we should Judge of the character Of every
act, not from the opinions ofthose concern
ed, but from the facts as they are proved
by witnesses who where present What
then are the facts of the case under consid-
alton! 1t is material to inquire whether
there was more than one bloU given by the
prisoner. IL several bLo,OS were given,
it would be evidence of less Stephen
Sproul, small boy, is the only witness
who testifes to several blows. He speaks
of three. The jury will remember his ex-
treme youth and that when he was first call
ed he was unable to tell his own age or to
give any information in regard to his know
ledge of the obligation to speak the truth,
or of the nature of an oath. He was there
fore rejected. After an absence Of some
| time, and after other witnesses had been
examined, he was again called and inquiry
was again made of him whether he knew
! the nature of an oath. To this he shook his
head. He was then asked if he knew
where he would go if he did not speak the
truth. lie answered that he would ego to
the bad place." and on further inquiry said
''that his father had taught him that long
ago" He could give no reason, however,
why he had not communicated this to the
court when he was first called Under
these circumstances the court admitted him
as witness leaving his credibility to the
Jury. 1t is TO be remarked farther, that
before the COroner's Inquest, he described
the three blows as having been given upon
the back of the deceased. Now he states
that one of the three was upon the head
In opposition to the testimony of this little
boy we have two witnesses who were pres
ent at the occurrence, both of whom are of
ripper years. They say that there was but
one 6lo,O given. 1t true that there is
rule of law that where one witness speaks
positively to fact observed by him, his
testimony outweighs several witnesses who
negative the fact so stated. But in this
case there is a question upon the credibility
OF the positive witness, arising from his
want Of knowledge his obligation to speak
the truth, and there are also other consider
atoms arising from the marks discovered
upon the body The physicians who made
the examination. discovered no marks of