The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1879-05-30

At the recent session of the Supreme
Court at Harrisburg Chief Justice SharS-
wood delivered an opinion which Is in
teresting and ImpC-tant to both lawyers
and hotel-kee'pers- The history of the
case is briefly this.
Francis NJ. Kane, q licensed inn Keeper Of
NorrstOwn, Pa, was indicted for selling
liquor on election day, contrary to the Prov
SiOnS OF the act OF April II, 1879. Inc al
legged otfenSe was. committed after the pC!JS
had closed for the day. On the trial counsel
for Kane COntended that the day referred
to III the act of Assembly was day OF twelve
hours, and that therefore, the defendant
had a ight to open his place as soon as the
election was ever. lie consequently asked
the Court to Instruct the jury. The law re-
gulatidG the sale of liquors on election day
being in a somewhat unsettled condition,
coup sci further asked the Court te charge
',that the Jury arc the Judges of the law and
the facts
The Court held that the day meant by
the act Of Assembly was one of twenty-fOur
hours, beginning at midnight ON election
! morning and ending at midnigbe on election
night. 1t refused to tell the iRry that they
were the Judges Of the law as weil as of the
facts holding that since the adoption of the
new Constitution, giving defendants in 4
Criminal Court WritS of ertOr, the doctrine
contended for had ceased to exist in Penn
Sylvania. The jury, under these instructions,
found Kane guilty as indicted, and he there
assigning the rulings cited as error. The
Supreme Court in Passing upon the case, in
an opinion by Chiet-Justice Sharswood, says
that the Court below was right in its ruling
upon the first point of election day contem-
plated by the act being 4 day Of tWenty-fOuT
hours and not day Of twelve hours.
On the second point Chief-JUstiCe Shars
wood finds the Court below III error, and on
this ground the judgment was reversed
On this point he says:
+l,of
Jury have the power. they have not the right e
give verdict contrary TO the instruction Of tn
would be breach OF their duty and violation O
their oath. The distinction between power am
right, whatever may be its value in ethics in la'
is very Shadowy and uusuhstantial. He who la
legal power TO do anything has the legal right,
Which they are IowcrIess to enforce by granting
new trial If it should be disregsrded. They ma
3 present TO them the obvious considerations whic
should induce them to receive and follow these IN
structiOns. but beyond this they have 10 right
, go The argument In favor of their taking the la
from the court Is addressed very properly dd rsl
cuei9drl. The court is appointed TO instruct then
and their opinion is the best evidence OF what th
$ law is
The Chief Justice further SAYS that it wa
the opinion of the founder of this Common
, wealth, and Of his friends and followers, tina
70 jUTieS are judges Of the law ana the fact
and cites a few authorities on the sam
/ point, After referring to the fact that Pr,
Sidcnt Judges have often been OveTTuieG b
Associate Judges not learned in the law, an
I whose opinions have in many cases been col
- CURED in by the Supreme Court, the Chic
Justice concIuyt2s as follows The powe
of the jury to Judge the law in crimin;
: case is one of the most valued securitit
g guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights. judge
- may still be partial ana oppressive, as we
from political as personal prejudceS, an
o when a jury are satisfied that this is the cas-
it is not only their right but their duty,
= interpoSe the shield of protection to the a
p cusod.