The Brookhaven leader., 1885-03-19

what he said the next day after the
homicide 10 Groome, but it does not
appear from the record that Groome
was offered as witness. We do
not decide that it would have been
erroneous 10 exclude the evidence Of
Birdsong, if the proper foundation
had been laid, but decline to pass on
the ground above stated. On the
same ground, Lovelace's testimony
was rightfully excluded, and for the
iui ther reason that 1t was irrelevant
10 the Issue. On the ground last
mentioned, the testimony of Aiken
and Bcrbervitch was rightfully ex
cluded. 1t would not have thrown
any light on the issue TO be tired.
The Instructions given at the IN.
stance of the district attorney are
free from error and the prisoner
got the benefit of all the instructions
to which he was entitled. After
the court had fully covered the case,
giving the prisoner the benefit of ev-
cry principle of law applicable, it
was not required to repeat the an
nouncemeut Of the legal principles
or 10 incur the hazard Of confusing
the jury.
1t made no difference that the in
dictment WAS not formally read to
the jury. They were certainly well
informed as to the charge against
the prisoner.
1t is to be regretted that the pris-
oner's counsel were not present
when the verdict was received
but as the jury was polled, it cannot
be said that any harm resulted.
The verdict was in these words
1--WE the jury find the prisoner gull
ty in manner and form as charged
in the indictment and plead the
mercy of the court" There was no
Instruction asked, aud of course
none given, informing the jury OF
it's right to inflict the nishment OF
imprisonment for life in the peniten-
tiary. When the verdict was read,
the judge said, The court has no
mercy to show" Mr.. Cammack,
one OF the jurors, then said Ifyou
want to know what we mean,I will
tell you" At this point, counsel for
the State interposed an objection to
any explanation, and the polling OF
the jury was proceeded with.
The court might properly have
enquired Of the jury what was
m,ant by the words land plead the
mercy of the court" What took
place suggests that the idea of i'm
prisonment in the penitentiary fol
lite was not in the minds of The jury
The verdictis complete and good as
rendered. and is not hurt by the
surplusaoe. The jury having con
Cured in the finding that the
prisoner WAS guilty as charged, i,
was necessary Tor all of the juror.
to concur az III imprisonment fo'
life in order to authorize thai
sentence AS all agreed that the
prisoner was guilty, it was the duty
Of the court to pronounce the death
penalty, unless all agreed also that
the punishment should he imprison
ment for life. The jury was polled
and each Juror declared the verdic,
to be his; and this was after III,
judge had said that he could show
no mercy. 1t is true that the aft
davit of one of the jurors has since
been produced, to show his under
standing and purpose; but it is moi
allowable thus tn amend or impair
the verdict. The affidavit of al
would be as incompetent to destroy
it as that of one is. The most
probable suggestion as to the cause
of the appeal to the court for mercy
is that the addition was made tC
meet the views or wishes of some
juror. But even if eleven of the
jury, while asserting to the finding
Of guilty, had disscnted as to capital
punishment, the prisoner would
properly have been sentenced to
death.
We have given this case the atten-
ton its Importance makes proper
and have carefully considered the
many grounds of error assigned and
urged by Jealous and able counsel
for the appellant; but we find no
error OF sufficient Importance to all
thoriZe a disturbance OF the. jrdg-
mcnt of the Circuit Court. affirmed.