, 1874-02-01

WEB made direct issue in the cause whether or
not O'Mea1a was participating in the arrest, and
| whether the prisoner VAS actuated by previous
or express malice. The prisoners counsel ear
nestly insists that the evidence would sustain q
conviction for manslaugbter only. ana that this
court should reverse the finding OF the jury up
on the evidence and set it aside. It is true the
statute has clothed this Court with q reviso1y
power over the verdicts Of jurles in criminal as
It has in civil cnses, aud it is also true that there
| IS soma difference between the two c1asses Of
cases; for IN criminal cases the guilt Of the &C.
| cused must be established beyond reasonable
doubt, while in civil cases the issue ia deter
mined BY preponderance Of evidence. In tho
latter class, it s the established rule If the YER
dlct IS wholly unsupported AZ to any necessary
element. OF it there is evidence upon both sidea,
tue clear weight and preponde1ance Of the svi~
dence, Nc set it aside. In criminal cases, this
Court has, as yet, established fixed, definite
rule. and is doubtful il any case can bo estab-
hshed farther than this /: II, when the evidence
il all carefully considered and weighed. it ap-
pears that it ia wholly wanting in respect to
some necessary element OF the crime OF il there is
Aconct OF evidence, and there is such clear pre-
ponderauce OF evidence against the verdict as to
suspend the judicial mind in serious doubt as to
tile guilt OF the accused, then in either case ne
ought to grant new trial Qust;ons OF tho
eredibllty OF witnesses are peculiarly for the
jury. As tor instance suppose tho conviction
rests solely upon the evidence Of an accomplce.
II the jury choose to believe him, We could not
reverse, when that fact vas the only one Affect
ing his c1edibihtJ, although We may believe that
fatth should not be reposed in such witness.
But when Il verdict rests solely upon the owl
of ngi !. aaa o,rees evidence
as to lead to the conclusion that the jury we're
actuated by passion or prejudice in disregarding
such impeach!ng evidence, then VIC ought to set
| this verdict aside and direct new trial.
NO INTERFERENCE ALLOWABLE.
Satisfied that m yu1a xyh
1usas ;sas ~ bose1u ~ 1eYle"lng tne vefolcte OF
ntt ;n4a-xea e.'"' eases can ~ re conslst-
o. IxaH. .a1!ese t ~ .als case. Inc evidence
80 49, - :. fa;,a ~ vas ~neo 1ne case "as
!aos oolo.e 10 ~ laus " eno" tnAt oecedsed
atten+ "as, ~ 4A ~ Fitpa.tns, u any aegree IN an
b,s conn,;tted nar;nr u A. so M neaai9n a;9
uae peslfs III eess11ylng as ne oia
t,ndnca5 fro4, h;o1, III ny ~ 'f.h "as n
cs,sad wsa at,nd;n1 .aa;nst r. danr tng n.;th U.s.
s1 ,t ~ a.45 80. ~ sae uue3 H!tn
es1resa nv fo. h t "t.et, ~ pie'ens
tfarebv ssaitt;nc s,oh 49,; e1;aa aaa e mas
;ntrodgceJ ,t that rdan" ouSn , e'taenGe
Faot ~ a'rod;h;i;t - Gao.si oa! senuea ~
far ttat nnrnoaa nn1v ~ nnnii ~ ~ s.I ~
rora +e 1arts ~ ~ Ths e0n 49, :.
~ h;m ~. fa,aat;a, ~ Gn.,ioa,. ss.J;h:1:t
~ 80 for ~ ~ ~, ,5 ~, ~ r;danna a y
him ~ wsa e Very ai;9ht ~ ''@0eeo opeo0'o >"
-11A' "@1 T,rn:r a";u, .nn.,- r,,r ~, ,vv
pnt +h.-s ~ - HAa a,hor 80 " ~ - - 49,
t;o e,.1a - a1:" t o' .ao y
ia-oI srroat ~ AL ,s-t;o;,;at;e ~ -
~ 49, ~. ~ ~. .-;Janaa ,t .-,na - ....,
nea1;oa III. ~ aoo,a ~ ,ra1n,o1. o
..i.n.,o. Saai.,o9 - s,hat,a +tt ~ 10
t,rt -ci;eor,s1, so+,d aast 1e;,;ia T -
t. s.,oo ~ .,s++a ~ .,,1.s .ood.t - -. 80
s1raodv n-ana]ed ~;th ~ ,I1nGad ~
r. IN i;s th4eat Theae officars rera Rr;dgenn-t
poiicemen and it nppe,rn tf1at he did not ne it