Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1860-11-21
Court Proceedings.

q T
mons case upon promises. Verdict for
defendant.
John J. Weaver vs. Adam Knarr. APP
peal. Verdict for defendant.
Jonathan Wa,n W. Richard Danvers, sr.
Appeal. Verdict for Plaintiff for S24 SO.
COURT OF OYER AND TERMNER.
Commonwealth vs.. John Cathcart In
dictmsnt murder" True bill. Verdict,
Guilty of murder in the first degree. Mo-
ton for new trial, and in arrest Of Judg.
ment. This case was called on Wednes-
day, and was argued by W. A. Wallace
and H B.. Swope, Esqrs.. counsel for the
prisoner, and on the part Of the Common
wealth by j. b. McEnally and R. j. Wal
lace, Esqrs. On Thursday morning Judge
Linn rendered the following
OPINION OF THE SQUIRT.
q We have been mo, ed in arrest of judgment,
and asked to award new trial to the prisoner in
this case, for several reasons, which have been
fled Of record, and have been pressed upon us,
by tho counsel for the prisoner, not only with grea
zeal and ability, but also under the fullest and
deepest impression of the responsibility attending
their official position; and we have endeavored
to give to them that serious and car eful consid-
Grafton which the solen importance of this case
demands. In doing so, we have tried to keep in
view that the issue s Of life and death to this
prisoner, and consequently we have given him
th, full Of ,ha and
which should enter into the consideration of the
ques tions presented to us.
The reasons off cred, why new trial should be
granted, are as follows:
| l. Because there is not sufficient evidence to
warrant the conviction Of murder in the first
degree. t.. r.
In our view of the case, the main qle stion upon
which its final determination rested, was whether
the act was done dcsignedly, and not by accident;
"wilfully deliberately, and with premeditation,
such as accords with the prov isons Of the Act of
1894 And we are now asked to say, in docid ng
the motion for new trial, that there was no evil
dence in the case that would warrant the finding
of such verdict as was render ed by the jury.
In deciding this question, we are not to invade
the province of the jury, who are by lazy the
Judges Of the facts--a wise provision of The law
(which constitutes one of the great safeguards of
the accused and We would therefore not be jus
tilted in granting n new trial merely because from
a view Of the evidence, the mi nds of the jury
might have been led to a different conclusion as
to his guilt, or the degree thereof. Where juror:
undertake to render verdict which is manifestly
contrary to the evidence, or where there is nc
evidence to warrant the finding, the duty of the
Court to set aside the verdict, and render a new
Que, is quite appar ent but where there is no evi
dence bearing upon the question, the Court vii
d not, an should not, disturb the verdict merel,
because ii may not be such as they had expected
would be rendered, nor because it would hav,
decided the question Of fact differently, Ever
in view Of the solemn consequen resulting iron
this verdict we cannot say that there was no
l evidence in the case from which the jury nigh
i find the existence of the requisites to murder i
n the first degree. The killing was not denied, no
= that the deceased came to her death by the hand
of the prisoner, and the question Of intention, o
. well as Of the degree of guilt was fairly and full
submitted to the jury for their finding; they hav
passed upon the question and have rendered thei
verdict; and the question which is now pre-
Z ssnted to us is, not whether we would have foun
different verdict, but whether the verdict rem
dercd by the jury Is lcgidn ate result Of the de
y termination of the questions of fact submitted
them. We will not undertake to analyae the evi
IN lbn norp
II facts and circumstances from which the jur.
= might infer an Intentional killing, and the pres
9 ence of malice, premeditation, &c. It is suficen
for us to say, that whilst we might have bee
satisfied with verdict finding lower degree o
homicide the jury. who have passed upon tn
II facts, after full argument and charge as ia
- yorable TO the risoner as he could REASONABLY
ask or expect, have found otherwise, and we can
not see how we can interfere with this verdict
. without palpable violation Of duty.
2. Because the Court erred in admitting tn
testimony Of Mrs Ray in rebuttal Of the prison
er's case, and In admitting the declarations Q
John Cathcart, made In jail.
This was not urged in the argument, and W
see no reason for changing our views as to tn
competency Of the evidence besides, the defend
IS ant has asked US to seal bill Of exceptions. {
B which he may have the full benefit in highe
is Court, IL We have erred in this behalf. Ef
) Q. The Jurors we're not properly sworn: y
II In passing upon this alleged reason for me-
trial, we have been requested by the prisoner
counsel to state the manner in which the juror
= were sworn n, 80 that IL an error has been con
d mitted. the prisoner may not be deprived of th
is benefit Of II. To this request we cheerful
n assent, None Of The jurors were sworn until II
whole twelve we're empannellcd. Tho oath WI
then administered tothem, not separately, but I
many as swore ty the book were asked to aris
~ and they were sworn thus: You and each
= you, swears,' &c, using the form Of oath, and
D. on as to those who were qualified ina diffcrei
form. The defendants counsel now except
this mode Of swearing ajury, and insist that eaC
M "Ntf-