The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-05

or anirm alton may be administered by your foreman
or by any one of your number.
You will examine no witnesses unless their
names are endorsed upon the back OF the bill. II
is not necessary that you should examine all the
witnesses whose names are so endorsed, II the case
for the Commonwealth is made out by portion Of
them. But you should not ignore any bill with
out having examined ali the witnesses for the Com
monweath. The defendants witnesses are in no
case to be examined by you.
1t is necessary that twelve of your number should
concur in order to lind "true BILL" III twelve OF
your number do not 30 concur, you should return
the bin ignored"
In cases OF homicide you have nothing to do with
the degrees OF murder. Your finding should be
general, in accordance with the circumstances OF
the case
In cases OF misdemeanor, where you ignore the
bill and put the costs upon the prosecutor you must
name him in your return ana every return must be
You Will have as usual, large amount OF bills
laid before you, covering almost every crime, from
the highest to the lowest grade. The duties de-
volvng upon you are most important. BY an intelli
gent and faithful discharge thereof you can greatly
aid the Court in the proper administration Of public
Justice. 1t is important that every one who is
charged in any degree with such administration,
should bring TO the performance OF his high duties
an innexible determination to adhere to the right
and to out equal and impartial justice to all.
And especially should IL be our duty to see to it
that prejudice or partality be allowed to influence
our minds or control our judgments. Our csnrts
are the last resort of the citizen in his extremity.
Let our judges be swift to hear, slow to speak,
slow to WRATH Let our jures exclude from the
jury-boX every feeling Of prejudice against SYM
pathy with criminals and, keeping an eye single
cPse by that and that alone. The innocent man
may then come into court rejoicing that his day OF
deverance is at hand while the criminal will learn
the ot-repeated but unheeded lesson, that 'the way
OF the transgressor is hard"
The District AttorneyshIp.
NiSi PTiuS-Jtdge Read.
This morning the arguments on the injunction re-
quiring Furman Sheppard TO show cause why he
should not desist from further proceedings in the
Court OF Quarter Sessions in the District Attorneys
case began in the Nisi Prius Court before Judge
Road Shpnnard the former inpumhpnt n tha
office, having made motion to reopen the case
after judgment mad been affirmed by the Supreme
Court, 1t is again pending in the lower Court.
p. g. McMurtrle, Esq, for Mr.. Gibbons, opened
the argument by giving brief history of the case
as 1t now stands. He then continued as follows:
We have procured the record itself in order to
verify this view Of the case In this record there
are two documents which are the groundwork Of
the proceedings in the court below Neither of
these papers, however, have been filed. One of
them could not pos IDLY have been filed. It would
have been quite an indecorous thing to file 1t. One
appears to have been the private paper Of one OF the
counsel in the case. 1t is covered with private
calculations and remarks such as 'Ths is not So"
office of a court 1t is not what it purports to be-
1t is evident that the controversy which this case
brings up can never be settled If 1t is carried
asked to make final judgment, and
judgment, it may be carried on for ever. 1t may be
asked once every term to say that it is nnal. We
were under the impression that court though it
may have chance by some legal proceeding during
any one term, which is equivalent to one day, to
alter Judgment delivered, yet when that term is
passed the Judgment must remain. From these pro-
ceedngs it would appear that the effect of the writ
OF ceTOrdri to cause the court below to suspend
its pow er over the record. II the court supposed
that they had no power to withdraw their judgment
while the writ OF ctrtordTi was there, how easy
was for Mr.. Sheppard TO withdraw the writ. 1t was
his writ He was the petitioner. The judgment would
have been altered in his favor. He now asks the
Court to do what he would not allow them to do be-
FORE The analogous cases they gave Of final judg-
ments in Of bills of review. Here legisa-
tive power had to be obtained. Does 1t not follow
that egarye power Sa haG 10 qe ooanea there
What cases are there pending in the Court below
in which they have power to alter their judgment?
In cases where Judge Is shown that he has given
erroneous decision some four or five years after
its given, does he proceed to hunt up the case and
begin again de nouo All he does is to say that he
has gone forth and cannot be altered. He cannot
hop it now he must stand by it,. was very much
surprised to find that the Court did not understand
that most common Of all laws that there is time
beyond which Judgment cannot be altered. A case
in Smith, pol, Commonwealth against Malloy.
Here court had found that the sentence OF man
tighten 1t and release the from JAIL They found
that they had no power In the case.
If man is sentenced to death who is innocent,
the Judge, even in this case. cannot alter his deci
SION There is redress, which is an application to
the Governor for the exercise OF executive clem-
eDry, not request to court to alter its decision.
There is a remark of Houston in Wharton, p. so,
which says that court may correct a Judgment
when 1t s the fault OF the entry by the clerk but it
done In 10 Watts, p. So 1t is explicitly stated
that judgment is out OF the power OF the courts
after it has once been entered.
You may remember the great Judicial question OF
Moses and Mcfarland. Here one OF the most emf
nent judges undertook to alter decision in order
to see justice done in particular case. We all
know what was the fate of that rule 1t did not
stand at all. In IL Common Bench $50, vol. IA, in
Freeman and Trainer, the time altered as to
avoid the technical difficulty OF having q judgment
against dead man. The argument set up was this
that all technical rules must bend to the admins
tration of justice TO all parties. "Then," says Maul
1--WE can only administer justice to certain degrees
OF administering justice without restraint" He in
fact says that in this is very bad that 1t works
in this way, but he cannot help it. The rule or
practice must stand. The other Judges concurred.
There is an enormous absurdity in the proceed
| ings which 1t is proposed TO institute After the
| judgment had been given and in the same term,
| should be altered. They said that they have no
power, because this court Is proposing to inquire
into the legality OF their rproceedings-because they
| have been ordered 10 send their record into this
court for examination. It is analogous to q case
where, after decision and before new trial, the
parties agree to sue out a writ OF error.
He virtually abandons the motion for new trial.
II the motion for new trial is refused 1t Is refused
forever. But the case here is much stronger. A
court is bound to hear new trial, no matter how
| much they may think he is not entitled to It, But
after you have made judgment, can he ask you to
go back and relitigate what has already been twice
decided by the only two courts which have any
George W. Biddle. Esq, for Mr.. Sheppard then
continued as folows:-
| Very few cases viii be found in which defendant
brought into court to show cause can be hlndered
from getting Dlunder corrected, in which they are
cited to appear. 1t denied by the other side that
several OF the papers In the record OF the court were
| not filed. This we DENY These papers were filed.
II the original papers were lost in the office OF the
court and other papers OF the same tenor and pur-
port were put in their place, It Is no fault OF ours.
| The aveTment in the bill is accurate with prect
| sion The papers were filed and answers were put