Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1872-03-23

the trial talked of. The jury had some pa
pers and periodicals TO read but it does not
appear that there was anything in them in
any way relating TO the trial of the case or
that could have influenced them.
In the case Of Commonwealth vs.. Reale
in Philadelphia, 1854, Judge Thompson
collects all the authorities and comes to the
conclusion that the rule adopted by both
ancient and modern decisions is that the
drinking OF liquor by jurors, in moderate
quantities, is not of itself reason for dis
turbing their verdict, where there is no
reason to believe that they INDUCED 10 ex-
cess. See this case reported in Wharton's
Criminal law page 3147. This seems to be
the rule in many of the States.
In capital case, spirituous liquors were
brought to the jury room of which they
drank, but not to excess so as to disqualify
them from deliberating and considering the
case properly, it was held to be no ground
for new trial. Rowe VS.. State, IL IIumph,
Judge Thompson says, in the case of Beale
before cited, 1--WE do not find that any other
rule has been applied to the conduct of
jurors in this State, and while we are dis
posed to hold the strictly responsible for
any abuse or excess, we cannot without
ence upon the case permit the verdict to
the disturbed upon the more presumption
of such influence, this reason must there
fore be dismissed.
The important and principal grounds
argued for new trial in the case now un-
der consideration, is the separation of one
of the jurors empannelled in the case from
his fellows. Mr.. Wharton, in his treatise
on American Criminal law, vol. 3, page
3l35, has collected all the American cases
on the subject, and he says that such Sc
paratiOn in a capital case, is primd fdciu
ground for new trial subject to be rcbut-
ted by proof from the persecution that no
improper influence reached the jury is the
position generally taken by the American
courts" (see the many cases cited by him
to sustain this position.)
In late case, tried al Williamsport, be-
fore Judge Gamble, Commonwealth VS..
Lloyd Britton) the above doctrine was held
to be the law of Pennsylvania. In the case
several of the jurors separated at different
times. On one occasion one of them went
to fire, others went to the post office,
whilst others went to public building that
was there being erected, but in every in
stance they were attended by constable
and it was shown to be satisfaction of the
Court no improper influence was brought
to bear upon the minds of the Jury. In
that case, the name of Britton, the prison
er, was mentioned to and by tue Jurors
whilst out In one instance the Juror re-
marked, you must not talk Britton to me. -
Judge Gamble reviews the case of Peiilcr
in the Commonwealth in Harris 4GS and
shows clearly the distinction between that
case and a case of separation such as we
are now considering, and that Judge Glib
son was not deciding a case like the pre-
sent.
This Court is fully convinced, from the
testimony and the high character of the jur-
ors. that they were not Influenced by any
thing but the law and the evidence in the
case as heard by them in Court. They at all
times, when in Court, sustained the charac-
ter of prudent and thoughtful men. They
were careful and attentive to the progress
of .he case, and we do not believe what any
sensible man would object to being tried
for either life, liberty or property by a jury
whose conduct out of Court was that of hon
est, intelligent and christian men. 1t is
christianity that makes men honest, and
we would think that in christian commun-
ity the last objection would be that the jury
engaged in acts Of religious worship.
At the time of the argument another
reason for a new trial was filed, but which
has been mislaid. The grounds were in
relation to the empannelling and selecting
of The jury. Before the case commenced
the counsel for the prisoner expressly
waived all objections on this account, and
whilst we are of the opinion that there
were no solid objections it is but necessary
to refer to the SD section of the Act of
1850, which provides THAT no verdict in
any criminal court shall be set aside, nor
lan ind. 1Nn f,l
tcnce delayed for any defect or error in the
precept issued from any court, or in the
venire issued for the summonng and re-
turning of jurors, or for any defect or er-
ror in drawing, summoning or returning
any juror or panel of jurors, but trial or
agreement of trial on the merits, or plead
ing guilty or the general issue in any case,
shall tie a waiver of all errors and defects
in or relative or appertaining to the said
precept, venire, drawing, summoning aud
returning of jurors"
The original selection was not set aside
or quashed by the Court, except that in
another case, for clerical error in the
Sheritf's return to the panel Of grand Jurors,
stating that they were selected at q time
when they could not have been legally Sc
lected, the array of grand jurors that found
the bill of indictment in that case was
quashed That did not affect that case,
nor eau il affect any other. In point of
fact the selection was made at the proper
time. The Sheriff's return was a mistake.
We have given this matter our most
careful consideration, and have come to
the conclusion that there has been no
grounds shown sufficient to set aside the
verdict. 1t is said that the matter is in
the discretion Of the Court, and so it is.
but the Court is bound to exercise sound
legal discretion. That discretion is not an
arbitrary one, but legal discretion, found
ed upon rules and landmarks laid down by
the Courts from time to time for their guild
ance and direction, and we should no more
depart from them than from the plain di-
rections of an Act of Assembly or the doc
trincs of the common law. 1t must be pre-
sumed that the prisoner is of sound mind
and capable of distinguishing right from
wrong, or his able counsel would certainly
have brought that matter before the Court
and jury, for they certainly know that no
pOurt would ayar ,Nart,,it the pOnvintinn Of