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

Ntrfei - waved hud N seems " us ihht thN IA
oos Of thst character
4 purnt The rrcerey N ,he bisi, and anst
The evidence and ptfhmeut bad closed, the Zip
slaves In charge u de Jury both % whom were
from the region where the tfnusaollon occurred,
and one " whom was witness on the part VI the
Commonwealthi mixed and conrsrsod with the
Jurors,
We cannot discover fforn the evidence any mis-.
conduct on the part Of the tip staves or jurors,
such as would warrant the granting of a new trial
nor is there In our opinion anything In the evil
dencc to support the next reason assigned, viz;
S. Whio the cause was progressing, during the
intorvels between the sessions Of the Court, the
Jurors we're accessible 20 outside influences, aud
persons actually entered their room.
6, While the jurors were celebrating upon
their verdict, one Of the hp-stayes Was present In
the room,
The testimony Of Mr.. Paulhamus fully explains
how this occurred, and wo fail 10 see in the trans
action any thing that calls for the granting of a
new trial. He merely entered the outside door,
asccnded the stairway, looked into the upper room
occupied by the jury, and asked for the buffalo
robes which were needed by the owner Of the
building, and who requested the tiP-stave to pro-
cue them for him. No injury could possibly
occur to the prisoner from this, nor do we find
rule Of law under which verdict rendered under
such circums tances would bo set aside.
Z. Because of errors in tho Court, and improper
influences on the jury.
Upon this general reason it is unnecessary to
make any comment; and hence we will pass to
the consideration of the eighth and last reason
assigned, as follows:
s. Because the defendant is convicted of a
higher crime Of murder than he can be guilty Of
under the testimony, and has, since the trial, dis
covered evidence to prove tnat his mind was in
capable of premeditation by reason Of intoxica-
tiVn.
This proposition has been pressed upon US with
great zeal and earnestness, and calls FOR close
and careful examination. The first branch Of it
has been answered by our remarks upon the first
reason assigned, and the latter clause asserts, as
a reason assigned for new trial, the discovery
of material evidence since the rendition Of the
verdict. Mr.. Wharton, in his admirable treatise
on American Criminal Law, at page $780, says:
"A party who seeks for new trial on the
ground Of newly discovered evidence is ehargable
with laches, If previous to the trial he knew that
the witness, whose testimony he seeks to intro
duce as newly discovered, must proba bly, from
his continuation and employment at the time of
the transaction, the subject OF controversy, be
conversant with the facts in relation Ia the trans
action, and especially where previous to the trial
the party knew, as the wituess himself estifes to-
what the witness could prove, although at the
time Of the trial. and while preparing therefor,
! the party had forgotten the fa ,ts."
Now apply this rule to the case in hand. The
prisoner, by his counsl !, alleges that he can now
prove by several witnesses that ho was inloxi.
Gated at the time the net was consummated. Civ.
ing to the prisoner the full benefit of this excep-
ton, we may not shut our eyes to the fact that
from the testimony Of these witnesses, the pris
oner must have known at the trial, and while he
was preparing for trial, that those witnesses were
oognizant Of the facts which he desires to prove
by them. Thoy were present with im saw hin
drink and fill his bottle, and the prisoner dranl
twice Mt the house of Mr.. Shof and several time.
with John Gregory. Now, when we consider tha
this all occurred on the day en- which Mrs. Cath
! ~
the trial, and apply to it the rule of law we have
just quoted, can this testimony, with any degree
Of propriety, bc called after-dscovered testi
mony" No effort was made to procure the at
tendance Of these witnesses, and the persons vhC
were sworn us witnesses upon the trial, and VIII,
werc present and saw the prisoner and conyerset
With him, or heard him converse with others. i'm
mediately or soon after the act was done, wer,
not interrogated.as to his condition at the time
whether intoxicated or sober. Thomas Cathcar
testified that he was there when the gun went off
Nancy Cathcart swoars that she was there few
minutes after; and other witnesses, who came il
during the evening, would most probably hav,
been able to state the condition Of the prisoner
but the question was not asked of any of them
so far as we remember except DR.. Fetzer who
says that, not having known tho prisoner previ.
ously, he conld not say whether he was ted
or not. But the counsel of the prisoner assert
that, although the testimony might or should
have been known to the prisoner at the trial, yet
through ignorance or forg etfulness, he failed tC
communicate it to them. This, as will be seer
by the rule already quoted is no ground for ask
irg new trial. We are clearly of opinion that
the prisoner has not brought his case within til
rules in regard to after discovered evidence; os
the contrary, We arc constrained to say that in
the rules of law are observed, this cannot upon
tiny principle be called newly discovered evi-
dence.
| Again VIC nre asked to consider, in decidin
this motion, that great deal of public prejudice
and much excitement prevailed at tho time oi
he trial, and that the prisoner has consequently
been denied the benefits of fair and impartial
trial. We are not made aware Of such state Of
feeling, other than by the assertions of counsel
if we except the rumOrs that are aaoat as 10 the
feeling in the neighborhood. The jurors, upon
being called, were, at the request of the prison
er's counsel put upon their eoir dire, and very
few Of them were found to have formed or ex
pressed any opinion in reference to the guilt or
innocence Of the prisoner. But admitting tn
fact to be SO, We cannot see that il affords apy
reason for granting a new trial. If such a state