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

Lewis / Bloom w. Patrick Dolin. Sum.
mons case upon promises. Verdict for
defendant
John J.. Weaver ys. Adam KnNrr APP
peal. Verdict for defendant.
Jonathan wRInyA Richard DanverS, sr,
Apped. Verdict for Plaintiff for S24 80.
coURr oF OYER AND rEHmNEH.
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 Iudg.
ment. This case was called on WedneS'
day, and was argued by W. A. Wallace
and IL B. Swope, Esqrs,, counsel for the
prisoner, and on the part Of the Common
wealth by ]. B. McEnally and R.. D. Wal
lace, Esqrs. On Thursday morning Judge
Linn rendered the following
OPINION OF THE COURT.
We have been mo, cd in arrest OF Judgment,
this case, for several reasons which have been
fled of record, and have been pressed upon u.s.
by the 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 endoavored
to give to them that serious and reful consid-
Grafton which the solemn importance of this case
demands. In doing so, we have tried to keep in
view that the issue is one of lifeand death to this
prisoner, and consequently We have given him
the full bOns6tof all the doubts and presumptiOns
which should enter into tho consideration of the
ques tons presented to us.
The reasons off cred, why new trial should be
granted, are as follows:
/. Because there is not sufficient evidence to
warrant tho conviction of murder in the first
degree. E..-..
In our view Of the case the main q7e ston upon
which its final determination rested, was whether
the act was done des gnedly, and not by accident;
and if Intentionally, then whether it was done
"wilfully deliberately, and with premeditation, n, /"
such accords with the prov isions Of the Act of
1894. And we are now asked to say, in decidi n G
the motion for a new trial, that there was no ev-
dence in the case that would warrant the finding
of such 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 safeguards Of
the accused and we would therefore not be jus
tilted in granting new trial merely because, from
view Of the evidence, the mi nds Of the jury
might have been led to n different conclusion as
TO his guilt, or the degree thereof Where jurors
undertake to render verdict which is manifestly
contrary to the evidence, or where there is 0
evidence to warrant the finding, the duty ef the
Court to set aside the verdict, and render q ne
Que, is quite apparent but where there is no evi-
dence bearing upon the question, the Court will
not, an should not disturb the verdict merely
because it may not be such as they had expected
would be rendered, nor because it would have
decided the question Of fact differently, Even
in view of tho solemn consequences resulting from
this verdict we cannot say that there was not
evidence in the case from which the jury might
find the existence of the requisites to murder in
the first degree. The killing was not denied, not
that the deceased came to her death by the hands
of the prisoner and the question Of intention, as
we'll of the degree Of guilt, 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 pre-
ssnted to us is, not whether we would have found
different verdict, but whether the verdict rem
dered by the jury is aegitim ate result Of the de
termination of the questions Of fact submitted to
them. We will not undertake to analyze the evil
deuce in the case, nor mention nor enumerate the
facts and circumstances from which the jury
might infer an intentional killing, and the pres
ence of malice, premcdtation, &c. 1t is sufficient
for us to say, that whilst we might have been
satisfied with verdict finding lower degree of
homicide, the jury, who have passed upon the
facts, after full argument and charge as fa-
vorable to the prisoner 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 the
testimony of Mrs. Ray in rebuttal Of the prison.
er's case, and in admitting the declarations of
John Cathcart, made in Jail.
This was not urged In the argument, and we
see no reason for changing our views as to the
comp eteney Of the evidence; besides, the defend
ant has asked us to seal bill Of exceptions Of
which he may have the full benefit in higher
Court, If we have erred in this behalf
,, The jurors were not properly sworn:
In passing upon this alleged reason for new
trial, We have been requested by the prisoner g
counsel to state the manner in which the Jurors
wer, sworn, so that If an error has been COM
mttcd. the prisoner may not be deprived of the
benefit Of it. To this request we cheerfuly
assent. None Of the jurors we're sworn until the
whole twelve were empannelled. The oath was
then administered to them, not separately, but rs
many as swore by the book were asked to arise,
and they were sworn thus ''You and each of
you, swears," &C., using the form Of oath, and so
on as to those who were qualified in diflers mt
form. The defendants counsel now except to
this mode Of swearing . jury, ndiusst that each
jury should have been sworn separately. We are
aware that ordin arilv this IL dana hnt ,ha roprl