Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1861-09-11

the child. She said she dld not know
what she was doing when she concealed
il. About niue hours after it was dis
covered, it died. An inquest was held
and DR. Jeffrys, who was one of the jurors,
testified that the forehead of the dead infant.
bore the marks of two severe blows. The
back part of the head was entirely crushed
IN feeling in thewords of the witness, like
a sack of boues' Its back was also broken
He stated that he was not what is termed
regular physician-that is the graduate of
Medical College From the evidedce we
are confident that the unnatural mother had
taken the infant by the legs, ard dashed its
head against the wall of the pig pen No
post naOrteW examination was made. DR.. Il.
S. Bum called by the defence, testified that
the external evidence of injuries, as testified
to by DIR. Jeffries, were sufficient to raise
strong, If not violent presumpti1n that they
caused the death Of the child, but added very
properly We think, that if present, he would
regard it as his duty, to hoId a post n,ortena
examination, in order to enable him to testify
With confidence. Physic ans who understand
their profession always do this.
The prisoner was defended by Messrs
Johnston, Oatman and Reed, From the
circumstances surrounding the unhappy girl,
we are certain this was an act of humanity
on their part, She stood before the Court
and jury without single relative to sympa-
thise, pity or care for her. The argument cf
Mr.. Johnston in her defence was sometimes
logical, but all the time eloquent and ingen-
ious, and from the verdict we entertain but
little doubt, welded powerful influence over
the jury-rescuing the prisoner from a con-
viction of murder in the first degree The
argument of Mr.. Reed proved him to be not
only well read lawyer but an eloquent ad-
vocate, while the speech of Mr.. Oatman, as
a maiden effort, was quite creditable to him.
| To those who have heard Messrs Noon aud
Kopelin address jury, it is unnecessary for
US to say that that their addresses in this case
on behalf Of the Commonwealth, were elo-
quent. logical, and under the facts of the
case, unansweraole. Judge Taylor CONNER
cei charging the jury at about half past nine
of Friday night. His charge was lucid ex-
position of the law, which applied to the case,
and an impartial recapitulation of the testi-
mony. He concluded with scme appropriate
! observations with regard to the solemn nat
ure of the duty which devolved on the jury
| He told them, that they had nothing to do
with consequences if the punishment annexed
| by the law, to the crime of murder was too
severe, the fault was not theirs. Courts and
! juries were the ministers, and not the auth
thors of the law. If they believed the prison
| er to be innocent of the crime with which she
was charged, or entertained a reasonable
doubt of her guilt, it was their duty to acquit
| her-if on the other hand. they believed her
to be guilty, it was their duty to find her SO,
without regard to consequences. The case wa
one which demanded their careful and dispass-
ionate consideration. To the prisoner at thebar
| to the public. and to the cause of public JUS
tice, it was one of very great Importance
While it vas not u shs that the innocent should
suffer, neither was it rig ht, that the guilty
should 60 unwhipped of justice. The jury
then retired and the next Saturday lmorniug
| about o'clock, brought the verdict of guilty
Of murder IN the second degree. The prison
er has not yet been sentenced.