Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-03-02

man in the Court of Common Pleas yester-
day, of mansIaughter, the result of a Grim
inal abortion, bring to mind some sugges-
lions that should not be lost. Frem some
cause-what, is not our province to inquire
the crime Of abortion is becoming so wide
spread and common that the question is
being seriously asked in some quarters
whether it is not the duty of Legislators, the
press, and even the pulpit..to employ then
efforts to stay its career, and to demand
such penalties for its commission as shall
place it in the category OF the most severely
punished crimes. There is scarcely an ex-
change that comes to Us from any consid-
cradle city, but the painful story of death
10 some unfortunate victim of this offense is
noted, whileit may be reasonably concluded
that not one-half of the actual misery and
suffering oecasioned is brought to light. 1t
is not necessary to point out the damag-
ing effects upon the public morals and
the deleterius physical influences result
ing from this state Of things; they
are apparent to all who will
think upon it. There is probably no
physician among us who could not write
such a record upon this head, as a result OF
his observations, as would be appalling
INC as We nave said, the evil is increasing,
and with its growth there are springing up
a host of fellows like this man Libbey
whose mission is in plain Saxon, simply to
murder. In view of these considerations,
therefore, we submit whether it is not well,
as a means of public safety, that the atten
ton Of those who can do something to cor
rect the evil-and particularly our Legisla-
tors-shOuld be called to the subject. We
believe it must be done sooner or later, and
the earlier the better. Let there be q spe-
cial enactment to Y the crime, and let
the penalty be severe. As an indication of
the feeling Of our people, We cannot but ex-
press our qualification at the conviction of
Libbey, and We hope his example will be a
wholesome warning.
CoURT or CoMNoS PLRAs.-In the criminal
branch of this Court, Judge Bolton presid-
ing, the case of the State VS.. William Pike,
William Burton, James Gifany and William
Clark, indicted for burglary and larceny,
was called yesterday afternoon. All but
Clark entered a plea of guilty, and were
committed, to await sentence. Clark plead
not guilty and was held for trial in the sum
Of $1,000.
The Grand Jury returned the following
indictments State of Ohio VS.. John Smith,
burglary and larceny. Defendant a~rraigned.
pleaded guilty, and committed for sentence.
State Of Ohio VS.. Philander Farr, receiving.
buying and eoncealing stolen property. Re
cognizance forfeited.
There being nothing further requiringthe
attention of the Grand Jury, they were dis
charged, with the thanks of the Court for the
promptitude with which they had discharg-
ed the business committed to them. The
days business was a good one generally,
five Penitentiary cases having been dis
posed Of
In the civil branches,v very little was done.
In Court Room No. I, Judge Cofinberry
judgment of s4574.6I was rendered for
PLAINTIFF in the case of George E. Brewer
ct a. vs.. E. F. Besll, argued to the Court.
In the jury case of Elizabeth Hughes VS..
tue c.. P. ( A. R. R. Co., a verdict of s24O
given for plaintiff.
There was nothing done in Room ., Judge
Foot.