Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1869-10-20

! at that time without the orders of hi
conductor was gross negligence. Fo
tms unfortunate man no one sympa
thises more deeply than myself
have taken pains to secure prope
acquittal or conviction. His Homo
then gave Webstcr's definition Of ncrli
gence, and applied 1t to the case. anC
stated that the Act Of Assembly wal
made to apply to signal and specia
acts of negligence The excuse whicl
is offered for the act of Griffin IL tha
he was asleep, and that in half un
conscious state, he pulled the throttl,
Of his engine. Evidence has also beer
brought forward TO show that it H
customary TO sleep while lying on
switch. | regret to hear such cv
dence, and that it is q common prac
tlce. Ii the Company keep such mer
in their employ, would II not be wei
to enquire If they are not guilty O
gross negligenceg The evidence /,
that defendant slept, but il its argued
that he was not responsible. wish
could so charge you, but duty will moi
admit Of it An employee charged
with the safety Of human life must moi
sleep at his post, nor while on duty
and he must use all his senses to keer
awake. The dictates of humanity
require it, and the rules Of the Com
pany demand it, Why did no 90 tc
sleepy lie bad ran only 2S miles, of
duty number Of hours, knowing
trains were following freigbtcd will
human souls, and to pass him on that
switch--why did he sleep? 1t /.
stated the night was warm and murky
and calculated to produce sleep, but il
required greater care and caution on
his part, and the law exacts it. Ifthe
rules of the Company had been lived
up TO would ten or twelve lives have
been lott--preoious to somebody
Admit that be was competent engi
neer, what apology is offered when he
slept at his post II was negligence
TO sleep that offers no apology. Iii,
friends have brought forward his good
character, but this evidence is to have
no weight 80 long as il has beer
clearly proven to you that he wa:
guilty. Character is only to be np
piled in doubtful cases, not wher,
guilt is rendered certain by evidence
We have discharged onr duty, now
dischargu yours. If after reviewing
all the evidence ard you are in doubt
that doubt should be cast in the pris
oncr's favor, but you are not TO lool
for doubts for the purpose of acquittal
Tho jury retired about halfpast
five o'clock to consider their verdict
and the Court, meantime adiournet
to seven O'Clock at which time, OF
reassembling Of the Court, the room
was crowded with an eager, anxious
Jury The prisoner bore up well
although deep anxiety was dcpi,iec
on his face, which feeling was shared
in by his counsel aud friends.
At about eight o'clock, after two
and half hours absence, the jury
. returned into Court. Amidst breath
less silence aud expectation thoil
names were oallcd-thoir foreman
handed their verdict to the Judge
who broke the seal and then handed
IL to the clerk; and when the clerk
pronounced the words "Not Guilty
a burst Of applause resounded through
the Court room, which was taken NJ
and echoed by the people outside
indications of the hearty public sym
pathy for the prisoner. The Judg,
promptly checked this outburst, auc
severely rebukod the unseemly dem
onstration. The Court then adjourned
to next morning.
MILFORD, Pa, Sept "a, 1869.
AT the opening of the Court thii
morning Judge Barrett ordered th,
clerk TO call the names of the jury il
the Griffin case and directed that
they be seated on his left. The clerk
then proceeded to call the names, ant
the Jurors responded as they were
called, until the whole panel had taken
their seats.
This unusual proceeding arrested
the attention and excited the interest
Of cvcry person in the Court room
and eager curiosity was aroused as tt
what was coming next.
The jury were attentive and oxpcc
tant, and there was profound silence
In the Courtroom.
Judge Barrett. addressing the iurv
said:
Gentlemen You last night returned
into Court, after hearing oftwo DAYS
with a verdict of Not Guilty in thc
case Of 'he Commonwealth against
James Griffin. This was not expec
ted and your verdict was against
law, aud an Outrage against humanity
You violated tho obligations Of YOU
oath-'a plain, simple obligation tc
render verdict according to the ovi
dence. Instead of that you rendered
a verdict against every particle of evi
dencc. The case Of the defendant was
abandoned by his counsel. Drowning
men will catch at straws. The theory
of the defence is unknown 20 tho law