Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1861-02-06
John Cathcart.

argued q, Philadelphia on the 10Th of
January last, by W. A. Wallace and II. b.
Swocpe, Esqrs for The prisoner and X.
j. Wallace and J. B. McEhally, E:qrs., for
the Commonwealth. The decision of that
Court, affirming the judgment Of the
Court below, und refusing Cathcnr. new
trial, was 6ed on Thursday last, and we
herewith publish as full an abstract of it
as we h.ve heen able to obtain:
CATHCARr vs.. THE CoMMoNwEALTH.-Er.l
,or IA Tie Court Of Oyer avd Tsrminer Of Clear.
field couny-Opiniou of the Court by
Strong. J.-Tne consequences of our de-
cision in this case are SO momentOus to
the plaintiff in error, that we have felt
constrained TO examine the record vita
minute caution. Our review has forced
upon us the conviction that there is no
thing which would justify us in sending
the case back to another jury. l.appears
to have been most carefully tried. No.
thing was withheld from the accused TO
which lie was legally entitled, and he re-
ceived every advantage in the admission
O! evidence and in the instruction given
t, the jury which he had rightto claim
Before proceeding to consideration of
the errors assigned in detail, it may not
be out of place to repeat the remark o'ten
Hade that our duty in such cases as this
is confined to adjudication upol the errors
of Law which appear on the record. Out.
side of that We cannot look. We are not
authorized to grant new trials, unless the
record exhibits that mistakes of the law
have been committed. IN no other case
have we power to interfere with the YER
dict nf a jury. We could not even If we
were satisfied they had found enormously.
These observations are not new. They
have frequently been made heretofore.
Thus, in jewell vs.. Commonwealth, 10
iIarrss, 90, it was said that IAN error not
apparent, on the face o! the recorded PIT o.
!ceeJings, however gross and improper it
may have been, is not subject of review
here, aRd the prisoner has no more right
20 expect relief on account of such irregu-
laritet from US, than from any other five
citizens of slIe State, who are invested
with no Judicial authority at all" Simi-
lar remarks Were made in Fife, Jones and
Stewart VS.. the Commonwealth, 5 Casey,
429.
1t is n mistaken opinion, sometimes
entertained, that in criminal cases our
powers are greater than they are in civil.
II is not so. When the lie Of human
being may be dependen; on our decision,
there is always enough Il induce Us very
carefully to scan the record and inquire
whether lie has been deprived OF ANYTHING
secured 10 him by the law, by which he
might have been benefited. But in Grim
;,ol vol in civil poSas pnr inpniIias
must be confined to the record, and in
both classes of cases there is but one rule
of construction. In both there is pre-.
sumption that the proceedings were /, gu
lar, and it is incumbent upon the plaintiff
in error to snow by the record that errors
were committed btfjre we can interfere
! If this were not so, the administration Of
criminal justice would be impossible. We
are not SO To administer the criminal law
as to make it an imnenetrab!e shield tor
the guilty.
Turning now TO the specific averments
of error, the first which we notice is the
allegation that lhe jurors were not prop
erly sworn. The record, however, iecltes
that they were "all sworn or affirmed re-
spectively TO try" &c. This of course,
raises the presumption that they were
properly sworn or affirmed. No exception
was taken to the mode Of qualification
and there is nothing beorc us indicating
any rreguarity Ou: paper book, indeed,
contains part Of the opinion Of the Court
| below upon the motion for u new trial, III
which il is stated that the jury were sworn
| Jointly and seyeraly. instead of severally,
but such an opinion is no part OF the re-
cord and il has often cen held that the
record cannot be corrected by it, Even il
it could the same opinion shows that no
objection was made to the manner III
which the oath or affirmation was admin.
lisIeled. This assignment, therefore, points
to no error Of which we can take notice.
Another specification of error Is, that
the record does not show that the prisoner
had counsel at the trial. 1t is based upon
an alleged presumption against the regu'
larity OF the proceedines-a presumption
directly opposite TO that which we have
shown TO exist 1t assumes that those
rights of the prisoner were denied him
which the record does not show ailrma-
lively were granted. Aswell might 1t be
assumed that the Court charged the jury
enormously, and the Commonwealth be
required to prove that the charge was IN
all points correct even before 1t was at
tack ed.
The right to be heard by himself and
} counsel IS doubtless Il Constitutional right
aud if it had been denied, there WOULD
have been error but we ale not to pre-
sumo that it was denied because the RECORD
, does not exhibit the fact that it was re-
{ corded. There are many rights of an ac'
E cused person, some Constitutional ant
, Others not, of which the record takes ne
notice. such as the right to compulsory
process for witnesses, the right 10 call ;
witness or to cross examine those OF The
prosecution, and the right to 1e heard 10y
> himself and counsel is one OF them. lh'
D safety of the accused is not imperilled by
a the silence OF the record, for if any of these
, rights be denied, there is an easy methot
of bringing up on the record tho fact o
l,i. Il. ,,l