Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1867-06-26
The Murder Case.


Indictment, Murder.-Motion for new trial
and in arrest of judgment
The determination of this motion has been
postponed, from time 10 time, for several
reasons. First, because OF the alleged preg-
nancy OF the Defendant, at the time the
verdict was rendered, which has turned out
TO be a mistake; and, afterwards, 1t was
further postponed, at the instance OF the
prisoner, because bill had been introduced
in the Legislature which provided for the
conferring upon the Governor the power to
commute the death penalty to Imprisonment.
Under such circumstances We deemed It hu-
name to postpone our decision, until II
should be known whether the bill, aforesaid,
would become law, and thus allow the de-
fendant the opportunity of avalllng herself
of its provision. if it should pass, finally,
and be approved. The act did pass both
houses of the Legislature, but we have re-
Gently received official notice that it will not
be approved by the Governor, so that now
there remains no reason or excuse for fur
ther postponement, and the time has there
fore arrived when the solemn duty devolYes
upon US of determining whether there is or
is not, grounds for granting The defendant 5
motion.
We will dispose of the several reasons
proposed for new trial, and in arrest of
judgment, in the order in which they occur
in the motion fled They are as follows:
l. That the Court erred in their charge
to the jury in giving 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 earnest and
able argument of the Counsel for the pris-
oner, 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
the defendant guilty of murder in the first
degree, or render a verdict of acquittal, and
that it is the duty of the Court SO to instruct
the jury. 1t affords Us great relief, howev-
er, to know that if We have committed the
error alleged in this reason, it is so palpable
and SO broadly stated in the language used
in the charge, that the prisoner will have
no difficulty in reversing our judgment in
the Supreme Court. In case of this char
acter we shall certainly not feel disobliged
by such reversal
2. There were improper associations and
interference with the jury, on the part of
the persons having them in charge and on
the part of others, so as seriously to inter
fere with the jury, in their deliberations as
jurors and the discharge of their duties. !"
There has been no evidence offered in sup
port of this allegation, and We therefore
pass it by without particular remark
g. The evidence at the trial was all con-
sistant with the innocence of the defendant,
and falls far short ofwhat is required. in such
cases, to secure conviction of murder in
the first degree" According to the views
we entertain of the law, applicable to this
case, if the defendant can be convicted at
all, it must be of the crime of murder in
the first degree, and we are far from agreeing
with the statement made il this reason that
the evidence falls far short of what is re-
quired, in such cases, to secure a conviction
of murder In the first degree" On the
contrary. after having listened to the entire
body Of the evidence, it seemed to us tt at
the human mind could scarcely resist the
conviction that the defendant is guilty of
the crime alleged in the Indictment.
As to the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 7th reasons
assigned, there was no evidence offered in
their support, and we therefore dismiss
them without particular remark.
After the granting of the rule. to show
cause why new trial should not be grant
ed, an additional reason was filed, by leave
of Court, in the words following, viz
s. 1.-The jury were Improperly allowed to
hear communications and declarations made
by witness, intended for the Court alone,
to the effect that the defendant had admit
ted she was guilty, or said she was guilty,
and that the declaration was repeated at the
time by the Counsel for the Commonwealth,
and was, with other declarations thus made,
of such a character as to impress the jury
and influence them in making up their YER
dict, and did SO influence them" This re-
fers to certain statements made inadvertant-
ly, by a witness named VIM. Mccartney
Thompson, and which, it is alleged. had an
improper and injurious influence upon the
prisoners defense When this witness was
first called, he proceeded to relate certain
| facts, which were clearly evidence, and to
which no objection was made The Com
monwealth then introduced a written offer,
proposing to prove by this witness certain
confessions made to him whilst he was con-
veying her to Jail This offer was objected to
by Counsel for the prisoner, and the Court
thereupon proceeded to hear evidence as to
whether the confessions were voluntarily
and such as could be received according to
the rules of law, applicable to confessions.
In the course of this examination, although
the witness was instructed by the Court S
to what he should or should not relate, per-
haps ignorantly stated, in his evidence to
the Court, part of the alleged confessions
mentioned In the offer; and this the prison
er complains of and alleges as ground for
new trial. We have most thoroughly and
cautiously considered this reason, and have
examined it with that degree of care which
the solemnity of the interests involved in
this case imperatively demand, and after
full consideration of all the facts and the
arguments of Counsel we are constrained
to say that, Notwithstanding the life of the
prisoner is at stake, we do not deem this a
valid reason for granting new trial in this
case. Immediately after the expressions
had been made, that are complained of, we