American citizen. [volume] (Butler, Butler County, Pa.) 1863-1872, 1867-05-08


as strong a case against the prisoner as
possible, in order to clear himself, yet
there is not single fact disclosed that
could fix the crime upon the defendant
If murder was committed, it was done
so secretly that none but the eye of ON
nicience saw the act. No one testifes
as to who did it. The man who COM
mitted the act would not be likely to
come back into he room and stamp the
head of one whom he was conscious he
had killed. 1t would be contrary to ma
ture.
Mr.. Thompson remarked upon the tes-
timony at some length, and argued from
it that no jury could weave such con
nected chain as would warrant them le-
gally to bring in such verdict as they
had done. There had not been any "a
hours from the time the murder had been
committed up to she time this trial CONS
menced, that the defendant could not
have escaped had he so determined. The
guilty flee when no man pursueth;' but
he has not done so. He has stood here
asserting his innocence first, last, and all
the time; and will do so if he should even
suffer the extreme penalty of the law by
so doing. The matter of costs to the
county, in the event new trial should
be granted, in case where life is con
cerned, ought not to weigh h with the court
New trials are often granted in cases of
mere dollars and cents. OF how much
greater consequence is life? If reason
able doubt Of the prisoners guilt legally
arises from all the evidence-and your
honors are now to decide upon that point
among others-the moral sense of the
community and impartial justice demand
that the defendant should have new
trial 1t would be better that ten thou>
sand guilty persons should go unpunshed
than that one innocent man should suffer.
Mr.. Thompson made a powerful appeal
for the exercise of the discretionary
power of the court in granting a new
trial to John B. Arlington.
The District Attorney, Mr.. Riddle,
said so far as the Commonw ealth was
concerned they would submit the motion
to the Court without argument.
Court adjourned till % a. m. tomorrow.
WEDNESDAY, April "a, 1867
Court met in pursuance of adjournment
j ohm b. Aadlington was brought into
Court by the Sheriff
Mr. MITCHELL for Commonwealth, said
he did not conceive it to be the duty of
the counsel for the Commonwealth to iu>
terpose especially against the argument
for new trial in a case involving the
consequences which this did; yet in us
tlce to the court and to his colleagues he
thought some hing should be said. Re
marks had been made by counsel for de-
fence in reference to the zeal of the coun.
sci Of the Commonwealth for a verdict of
guilty Of murder in the first degree. They
had not stepped beyond the strict line of
their duty, nor would they do so under
any circumstances 1t had been alleged
there were persons present at the lamen-
table attray at Oliver, and that the pros
eeuticn had been remiss in not bringing
them here to testify. They had procur-
ed all the testimony they could; they had
dragged the country as with net, to OBJ
tain all the evidence they could hear of.
lfapy witnesses were absent whose testi-
mony would have been important, it was
because they could not be obtained. He
should not argue the case a length for
the purpose of objecting to the granting
of new trial. They had done nothing,
beyond their imperative duty. They had
not pressed the reception of particle of
testimony which they did not think Ice
gtimate; that where there was the slight>
est doubt of the legality of the evidence
they had asked the Court to rule in favor
of the prisoner.
The Court had sustaind the array of
jurors against the motion 10 quash, as
they conceived, Justly. They had not
pressed the defendant to trial beyond the
demands Of TIE law. There was less pre-
judice in the minds of the community at
the time this case came up for trial than
there is at present; but this is a matter
with which this Court has nothing to do
He did not believe the Court or the jury
had erred but, in the argument here, in
the present shape of the case, there were
other considerations which appealed to
the sympathies of the Court, and he would
not resist the application. The counsel
for defendant had argued eloquent ly and
earnestly to the jury for an acquittal of
any crime, and had measurably over-
looked the importance of commenting on
the degrees of guilt. 1t was not the duty
of counsel for the Commonwealth to press
upon the jury the degrees of murder and
manslaughter. 1t may be that by grant
ing a new trial to the defendant the ex-
treme penalty of the law may be avoided,
aud substantial justice done him. 1t
may be that the defendant did not in
tend to kill, but only to commit bodily
injury. If such be the fact, then it would
not be murder in the first degree. He
recommended, on behalf the Common,
wealth, that the Court should exercise
its discretion with clemency, and afford
the prisoner an opportunity to avoid the
extreme penalty of the law by pleading
guilty to lesser grade of crime.
The Court said they were divided in
opinion. Their responsibility was great
and they keenly appreciated it. They
would hold the motion under considera'
ton until the June Court, when they
would decide it.
-Snooks says the reason he does