Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1860-11-21
Aaftsman's golttnal.
CLEARFIELD, PA, NOV. 2I, 1860.
THE CATHCART MURDER CASE.

THE CATHCART MURDER CASE.
The case of John Cathcart, charged with the
murder OF his wife, was again called up in the
Court of Oyer and Terminer of Clearfield
county, on last Wednesday, when the motor
for new trial, &C., was argued by W. A. Wal
lace and III. II. Swoope, Esquires, on the part
of the prisoner, and by J. B. McEnally and Il
]. Wallace, Esquires, on the part of the Com
monweath. On Thursday morning, His Hon
or, Judge Linn, rendered the decision of the
Court, as follows =
We have been moved in arrest of judgment
and asked to award a new trial to the prisoner
in this case for several reasons, which have
been filed of record, and have been pressed
upon us, by the counsel for the prisoner, not
only with great zeal and ability, but also under
the fullest and deepest impression of the res
possibility attending their official position
and we have endcavored to give to them that
serious and careful consideration which the
solemn Importance of this case demands. In
doing so, we have tried to keep in view that
the issue is one of life and death to this priso-
ner, and consequently we have given him the
full benefit of all the doubts and presumptions
which should enter into the consideration of
the questions presented to US.
The reasons offered, why new trial should
De STaiitcu, are as
1st. Because there is not sufficient evidence
TO warrant the conviction of murder in the
first degree.
In our view of the case, the main question
upon which it's final determination rested, was
whether the act was done deslgnedly and not
by accident; and if Intentionally, then wheth-
er it was done sswilfully, deliberately and with
premeditation,' such as accords with the
provisions of the Act of 1894. And we are
,eIf to IL cI6i ha mo for
a new trial, that there was evidence in the
case that would warrant the finding OF such
a verdict as was rendered by the Jury. In
deciding this question we are not to invade
the province of the Jury, who are by law the
judges of the facts-a wise provision of the
law which constitutes one of the great safe
guards of the accused--and we would there
fore not be justifable in granting new trial
merely because, from view of the evidence,
the minds of the Judges might have been led
to different conclusion as to his guilt or the
degree thereof. Where jurors undertake to
render verdict which is manitestly contrary
to the evidence, or where there is no evidence
to warrant their finding, the duty of the Court
to set aside the verdict and order new trial,
is quite apparent; but where there is evidence
bearing upon the question, the Court will not
and should not disturb the verdict merely be-
cause it may not be such as they had eXpec-
ted would be rendered, nor because they
would have decided the question of fact diff
fcrently. Even in view of the solemn conse-
quences resulting from this verdict, we can
not say that there was not evidence in the
case from which the Jury might find the exis-
tence of the requisites to murder in the first
degree. The killing was not denied, nor that
the deceased came to her death by the hand of
the prisoner, and the question of intention, as
well Of the degree of guilt, was fairly and
fully submitted to the Jury for their finding
they have passed upon the question and have
rendered their verdict and the question which
is now presented to US is, not wetherwe would
have found different verdict, but whether
the verdict rendered by the Jury is a legitimate
result of the determination of the questions
of facts submitted to them. We will not un-
dertake to analyze the evidence in the case,
nor mention nor enumerate the facts and cir
cumstances from which the Jury might infer
an intentional killing, and the presence of
malice, premeditation &c. 1t is sufficient for
us to say, that whilst we might have been sat
isfied with verdict finding lower degree of
homicide, the jury who have passed upon the
facts, after full argument, and charge as
favorable to the prisoner as he could reasona-
bly, ask or expect, have found otherwise, and
we cannot see how we can interfere with the
verdict for this reason, without palpable vio-
lation of duty.
I'd. Because the Court erred in admitting
the testimony of Mrs. Ray in rebuttal of the
prisoners case, and in admitting the declara-
tions of John Cathcart made in Jail.
This was not urged in the argument and VIC
see no reason for changing our views as to the
competency of this evidence besides the de-
fendant has asked us to seal bill of eXcep-
tions, of which he may have the full benefit in
higher court, if we have erred in this behalf.
Sd. The Jurors were not properly sworn.
In passing upon this alleged reason for a
new trial, we have been requested by the pris-
oner's counsel to state the manner in which
the Jurors were sworn, so that if an error has
been committed, the prisoner may not be de-
priyed Of the benefit of it. To this request we
cheerfully assent. None of the Jurors were
sworn until the whole twelve were empann ell
ed The oath was then administered to them,
not separately, but as many as swore by the
pook were asked to arise, and they were sworn
mus: "Iou, and each Of you, swear" &C.,
using the form of oath, and SO on as to those
VINO were qualified in different form. The
ueiehoants counsel now except to this node
oi swearing the Jury, and insist that each Ju-
ror sbould have been sworn separately We
are aware that ordinarily this is done. but the
Iourt were induced in this case to defer swear
ing the Jury until the panel was full, lest they
might be obliged, on account of the rumors
which might prevail throughout the country.
10 &c, dismiss the Jury and continue the case
we cannot see any reason why the mode adopt
ed is unlawful. The Jurors were by this mode
severally placed under the obligation of the
oath, put as effectually, to all intepts and pur-
poses, as though it had been administered to
each one in succession. We cannot see how
~, .ne case OF the prisoner can be prejudiced by
. .lls practice. Besides, we are of opinion that
t tne objection, being matter of form, should |
lave lave been made at the time the Jury was |
sworn, and that it is no reason for granting
new trial. 1t is said by counsel that the pris- |
ouer may remain silent, take his chance of an |
soa' seIalttai' and after conviction, urge this OBJ
'e''ion. There are, however, irregularities ]