North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1866-11-28
Court Proceedings.

SOuEl
The November session of Court at this
Place opened on Monday the 10Th inst.
Hon WIN. ELwELL, President Judge
and Hon. NATHAN WELLS and j. V.
SMIIH, Associates, present,
QUARTER SESSIONS
Grand Jury called and sworn.
n. p. Wilcox Esq Foreman.
E True Bills were found in the following
cases
Commonwealth vs. Minor Beam-Indict-
ment, Larceny. VIM. Perigo, Pros. Cause
tried, detendent found guilty and sentenced
to the House of Refuge.
Commonwealth as. A. w. Secor, indict-
ment, assault and battery. Cause tried
Deft. found guilty. Sentenced to pay
$50 fine and costs of Prosecution.
Commonwealth as. Edward Lloyd-in-
dictment forging order I'm. Au-
mick, Pros. Cause tired, verdict guilty.
Deft sentenced to the House of Refuge.
Commonwealth u.s. Gusts Williams--in-
.dictment. horse stealing. Philo Sherwood
Pros. Cause tried, verdict guilty. Def.
sentenced to pay fine of$500, and costs and
TO Penitentiary for 3 years and six months.
Commonwealth as. Ira Schooley. In
dictment, man slaughter. A. W. Jaques,
Pros. Cause tried. After hearing two or
three witnesses to disclose the facts atten-
dant upon the killing. l.. Hakes, counsel
for prisoner, admitted the commission of
otfense by prisoner. The jury returned a
yerd ct Of Guilty without lea"ing the boy.
On motion of prisoners Counsel, sentence
II not all the Jurors, signed petition to the
Governor for pardon. -
Al. the material facts of this case hav-
ing been before published in the Democrat,
u repetition here, is deemed unnecessary.
Commonwealth as. William Rinker and
Horace Ilarding. rejecting
vote Of qualified voter. James Croop,
Pros. Cause tried Jury failed to agree
after being kept for nearly two days and
nights wero discharged by the court.
Commonwealth Us. Mark keeney and f.
s. Thompson. Indictment rejecting vote
Of qualified voter. Stephen Taylor, Pros.
Cause tried. Deft. found guilty and SEN
tenccd to pay fire of $50, and costs.
These last mentioned cases excited
much interest, being the first cases tried in
this county since the passage of the So
called d':serter Law, which the. .Defendents,
being members OF election boards in the
township of Eaton and Windham, seemed
10 have entirely misunderstood and misin
terpreted.
These cases involved the question of the
right of an election board to reject the
vote of citizen, otherwise qualified, on
the ground that he had been drafted into
the service of the United States, and had
failed 10 report.
Ills Honor, Judge Elwel, in his charge
cited the several acts of congress which has
been passed from the year 1906 to the
passage Of the act Of 1865, upon the sub
iect OF dcscrtion-and showed that under
all of them trial and conviction must pre-
cede punishment for that offence The
act of March Sd, 1865. was part of a sys-
tam of law upon the subject, and imposed
an additional penalty, which followed as a
consequence upon the conviction of an Of
fendcr..a. That ac:, he instructedithe jury,
does not deprive person of his right of
citizenship until he has been tried by a
court martial and found guilty OF the of
fence OF deser,ion--nor then, until his sem
tenee has been approved by the proper
officer.
Tie Supreme Court sitting at Wilkes
barre last June, in the case of Huber u.s.
Reilly decided, that ''the law as it stood
when the act of 1865 was passed, had pro-
yided tribunal in which alone the crime
~f deaertlon could be tried, and by which
alone the penalties for deser-
tion could be Inflicted. The conse-
PleneeS of conviction may be noticed by
Courts, but the tribunal appointed by the
law for the purpose is the only one that
oan determine whether the crime has been
committed and to adjudge the punish !
mcn'."
And they further decided that the for !
feHure OF citizenship, which that act pre- /
scrIbes, must be odjadged to the convicted
persch after trial by court martial, "For |
the conviction and sentence of such Court 4
there can be no substitute"
\ board OF election officers con stituted |
Lt-ttcF q Stdle Ia" ctiluoL resolve them I
selves into such a tribunal "They have
no power to try criminal offenders, still
less TO adjndge the guilt or innocence of an
alleged vioiator of the laws of the United
States" !
In every Court throughout the state, in
which this question has been raised, both !.
before and since the decision of the Count
OF the last resort, the same construction
has be-" given to this act-officers of cleo