Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-06-27
Tho Scnf1noc.

and confined in our Jail for some time
past for poisoning her husband, was
brought into Court on Saturday morn
ing last, for tho purpose Of receiving
her sentence. After being requested
TO stand up, bis Honor Judge Linn
proceeded TO fulfill the demands of
the law, as follows, viz.
COMMONWEALTH In the Oyer and Terminer Of
vs. cisaricld county.
LEsA MILLER. J Indictment, Murder.
Motion for neD trial, and IN arrest Of
judgment.
The determination ofthis motion has
been postponed from time TO time. for
several reasons: first, because of the al
legged pregnancy of the deiendantatthe
time the verdict was rendered, which
has turned out 10 be n mistake and
afterwards it was further postponed,
at the instance OF the prisoner, because
a bill had been introduced into the
Legislature, which provided for con
ferring upon the Governor the power
to commute the death penalty TO i'm
prisonment Under such circum-
stances, we deemed il humane to post.
pone our decision until it should be
known whether the bill aforesaid
would become a law, and thus allow
the defendant the opportunity of
availing herself of its provisions, If it
should pass finally and be approved.
Tho act did pass both houses of the
Legislature, but we have recently re.
ceived official notice that it will not
be approved by the Governor so that
now there remains no reason or ex.
cuse for further postponement, and
the time has therefore arrived when
the solemn duty deyolves upon us OF
determining whether there is or is not
ground for granting the defendants
notion
We will dispose of the several rea.
sons proposed for a new trial and in
arrest of judgment in tho order in
which they occur in the motion filed.
They are as follows:
First. That the Court erred in theiI
charges to the jury in giving them
positive directions in regard to the
degree of murder which they must
find, and also in other directions given
We have carefully reviewed our
charge in the light OF the very able and
earnestargument ofthe counsel for the
prisoner, and regret to say that We
have been unable TO discern any
error. We still think, as we did upon
the trial, that in cases of murder by
poison, the jury must either find tn,
defendant guilty Of murder in the first
degree, or render a verdict of acquit-
tai, and that it is the duty Of the Court
so to instruct the jury. 1t affords us
great relief, however, to know that i
we have committed the error alleged
in this reason, it is so palpablc and 50
broadly stated in the language useC
in the charge, that the prisoner will
have no difficulty in reversing oul
judgment in the Supreme Court. In
a ease Of this character, we shall Ger
tainly not feel disobliged by such 1
a reversal
Second. There were improper asso
ciates and interference with the jury
on the part OF the persons having then
in charge, aud on the part of others
so as seriously 20 interfere with tn,
Jury in their deliberations as Juror
and the discharge Of their duty.
There has been no evidence Offered
in support Of this allegation, and We
therefore pass it by without particulai
remark.
Third The evidence at the tria
was all consistent with the innocenc,
Of tho defendant, and fell short o
what is required in such cases to secur,
a conviction of murder in the first de
gree.
According to the views we entertain
of the law applicable TO this case, i
the defendant can be convicted at all
it must be Of the crime Of murder il
the first degree, and we are far iron
agreeing with the statement made il
the reason, that the evidence fall
short Of what is required in such case
to secure a conviction of murder il
the first degree on the contrary, afte
having listened to the entire body o
the evidence, it seemed to US that tn,
human mind could scarcely resist tn
conviction that the defendant is guilt,
of the crime alleged in the indictment
AS TO the fourth, fifth, sixth an
seventh reasons assigned, there wa
no evidence offered in their support
and we therefore dismiss them withou
particular remark.
Eighth The jury were improperl,
allowed to have communication an,
declaration made by a witness, in
tended for the Courtalone, TO tn
effect that the defendant had admit
ted she was guilty, or said she wa
guilty, and that the declaration
was reported at the time by tn
counsel for the Commonwealth, an
was, with other declarations thu
made, of such a character as to i'm
press the jury and influence them il
making up their verdict, aud did s
influence them.
This refers to certain statement
made inadvertanlly by a witness
named WIN. McCarty Thompson, an,
which il is alleged had an imprope
and injurious influence upon the pris
oner's defense. When this witnes
was first called, he proceeded to relat
certain facts which were clearly evi
dcnce, and to which no objection
were made.
The Commonwealth then intro