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

supreme Count o0 lNu sha. which ua.
argued m Philadelphia ou Dho lUu OBJ
.ouumN h.l u,W. A. WUhuanaJ ~ b.
Stocp' Eqiv Cow lho wiuu.r 0ui H
t. Wm1.c m1 lB McE. l. Egr. 10.
1cC.mmouoH.lh ThcuOc.on u. tHol
Court affirming lbc Judgment OF 'h.
Court below, and refusing Cmhcor. nou
trial, was Sled on Thursday last, and W,
herewith publish as ruIl an abUsact Of If
% Wo have lcen ablo o obtain,
C,Tacnf va 1uG CoANoSWElTu -E Er.
30r 10 He Court NJ oyer avd lamarg Cicv.
.feld county Opinion Of the Court 10y
Strong, J.--lnc consequences Of cur de,
cision in this case are 50 mOmentous tC
the plaintiff in error that we have felt
constrained TO examine the record witt
minute caution. Our review has forced
upon us the conviction that there is no
thing which would justify US in sending
the case hack so another jury. ltappoars
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 admiS sion
Of evidence and in the Instruction given
l. the Jury which he had right TO claim.
Before proceeding TO % consideration 0i
the errors assigned in detail, il may not
be ont Of place 10 repeat the remark o'tcn
made, tENJ our duty in such cases rs This
Is confined adjudication upol tne errors
OF law which az pear ON tie record. Oot.
side of tua. We cannot look We are not
authorized 10 grant new trials, unless the
record exhibits that mistakes Of the lass
have been committed. IN 40 other ca II
have we power to interfere with the yer-
dict Of a jury. We could not even # we
were satisfied they had found cToueonsly
These observations are not new. They
have frequently been made heretn,orr
Thus, in Jewell vs.. Commonwealth, IL
, Ildrrss, 90, il was said that IAN error not
/ Iapparcu, on the face ot tho recorded WO-
CO cIinEs, however gross and improper Il
may have been Is not subject OI review
here, aud the prisoner has no more right
TO expect relief on account Of such ilTegu-
laritet from us, than from any other five
citizens of .he State, who are invested
with no judicial authority al all SinIi-
lar remarks We.e made in Fife, Jones and
Stewart vs.. the Commonwealth, Casey,
100.
II is mistaken opinion, somr' !mes
entertained. thar in c.Olinal cases oar
powers are greater than Tia, y are ia civil!
1t Is not so. When the lie of human
being may be dcpeuden; on our decision,
lhcre is always enough t, induce Us very
. carefully To- scan the record and inquire
/ wMelhei lie has been deprived oil any luiug
| secured TO him by the law, by which h,
might have been benefited. But n Grim
! iuai, gs well ~ in civil cases our iuquiIe.
mast be confined to the record, and IN
/ both classes OF cases there is but one yulC
| nf construction. la both there is pre-
SUM ton that the proceedings were !, "a
! lar, and 1t i incumbent upon the plaintiff
! In error TO snow by The record that errors
were committed b~f,ve we can interfere
! Ii this were not 80, the administration o
criminal justice would be impossible. We
are not 30 10 administer the criminal Law
az 10 make il an imVenetrAU!c shield tOi
| IHe guilty.
Turning now to the specific overments
of error, the first which we notice Is the
allegation lhat lie jurors were not prop.
~lly sworn. The record, however, recite,
that they were "ail sworn or affirmed re-
opectWelY to try" &c. This, OF course,
raises the presumption that they were
properly sworn or affirmed. No eNceptiOn
was taken TO ,he mode Of qualification
and thore IS nothing before us indicating
any irrrguiarity. Ga: paper book, indeed
contains part OF the opinion OF tie CUult
! below ulOu the motion lor Il ne" trial. IA
which il is stated that the juyy were sworn
Jointly and seycially, instead OF scycraliy,
but such an opinion is 10 part OF the re-
cora. and it has often Keen held that the
record cannot be corrected 10y it. Even il
/ il could, the same opinion shows that no
| objection was made to the manner IN
| which the oath or affirmation was admin
! isteTed: II his assignment, therefore, points
/ TO no error OF winch 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'
Iarity OF the proceedines--a presumption
/ directly opposite TO that which we have
shown to exist. 1t assumes that those
rights Of The prisoner were deni'd him
which the record does not show ahirma'
lively were granted. swell might it br
assumed that the Court charged The jury
erroneously, and the Commonwealth be
|requlrcd TO prove that the charge was ia
all points correct even before It was at
| tackled.
The right to be heard by himself anc
counsel 5 doubt}e q constitutional right
auG if il had been denied, there wouiC
have been erlar; uut we a.c not to pre-
,ume tAatItwas denied because there
docs not cSh.bit the fact that il was re-
corded There are many rights Of an ac
cused person, some Constitutional Rnr
others not, OF which the record takes NJ
notice: such as the right TO compulsory
process for witnesses, the right tC cal .
witness or to cross examine those oi tht
prosecution, and the righ, to 3e heard by
himself aud counsel is one Of them TIL,
safety Of the accused is not imperlled by
the silence OF the record, for iiany Of thcs,
rights Uo denied, there is an easy mcthoC
of bringing up on the record The fact 0
the denial,