Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-03-27
HISTORY OF THE TRIAL
or JAMES HAMILTON FOR MURDE n
iva JACOB HUNTER.
A Crime That Startled Msrtic Townshlp 4,
1sis-Ths Deed Committed for the Pur-
pose OF Robbery Tho Bat,ies OF
the Counsel In tho Case.

put on trial at the August sessions, lSlI, Tor
the murder of Jacob Hunter, colored man
living in Martic township. Tho prisoner
was defended by George Ford and w. l..
Campbell and prosecuted by Attorney Gen.
Champneys. Judge Lewis presided, and
the associate justices were Jacob Grosh and
Emanuel Schaetier.
The testimony on the part of the common
wealth was that Hamilton and Hunter were
together on spree. ON the night OF Decem-
Der Y Hamilton attacked Hunter, struck
him several blows on the head and robbed
him OF q watch aud some money. Hunter
fingered until January l3, when he died, a.
alleged, from the effects OF these wounds.
The defense was that the wounds were not
necessarily fatal /; that If he had been prop
erly attended he would have recovered. The
jury reached a verdict on Sunday, August
%, Of guilty of murder in the first degree
ON the day following the sentence Of death
was imposed in these words - " Whereupon
all and singular the premises being seen and
understood by tho court here, II Is consd-
cred by the court that the said James Ham
ilton, otherwise called James Thacker, he
taken from hence to the place from whence
he came, and from thence to the place of ex-
ecution, and that he be there hanged by the
neck until he be dead"
FOR A WRIT OF ERROR.
The attorneys for the prisoner made appli-
cation to the supreme court for special atto-
cdttr for writ of error, for cause shown,
and presented an authenticated copy of the
record of the case "a made by tho clerk Of
the court.
In support of his position, Mr. Ford filed
the following reasons
lst. The record was imperfect because it
does not appear that the jurors were sworn
to try whether the prisoner was guilty ar
not OF the felony in the indictment specified:
%. 1t does not appear upon the record
that the prisoner was present when the sen
tence was passed upon him, nor does 1t show
that he was asked whether he had anything
to say why sentence OF death should not be
pronounced against him.
Sd, The record shows that the sentence was
passed against the prisoner, not In the
second. but in the third person, and as
mere direction from the president OF the court
to the clerk.
4th. From the record it appeared that the
trial was had in the court OF quarter sessions
and not in the oyer and terminer.
ARGUMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Mr.. Champneys in his argument said that
the homicide was committed by the prisoner
in the preparation of a ROBBERY, and as the
degree of the offense was therefore expressly
designated by the act of assembly, there was
nothing left for the discretion of the jury.
That the injury inflicted by the prisoner oc-
casioned the death OF Hunter was ascer-
tanned after careful post-mortem examina-
tion. There was evidence of gross negii-
gence in omitting to procure the proper med
ical attention to the wound and, although
the death of Eunter was fastened by the in
attention, yet it was apparent that the wound,
and not the improper treatment, caused the
DEATH aud the jury who tried the case could
not do otherwise than convict the prisoner.
Having had doubts as to the propriety of tho
conviction from testimony subsequently dis
covered and presented by the prisoners
counsel, both the late and present executive
received the information which induced
them to suspend the warrant OF execution
He answered Mr. Ford's first reason by
stating that the record was made up III con.
formity with the practice in the county and
equaled in particularly the records OF any
county in the commonwealth.
As to the second error, he said the records
show that the prisoner was present during
the trial. The arraignment OF the prisoner
and his plea, the challenges of the prisoner
and the statement that he was brought in for
sentence, sufficiently indicate the trial III
person which the constitution and law de-
mand.
AS to the error alleged in the omission TO
place upon the record the inquiry made OF
the prisoner after conviction II he has any
thing to say why sentence should not be i'm
posed, Mr.. Champneys stated that careful
examination of the records OF the county
from 1872 to the present date SHOWS that there
were but three instances i'll convictions in
homicide cases in which that inquiry was
placed upon the record.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Chief Justice Gibson delivered the opinion
Of the supreme court and it is as follows:
The artistic form in which the sentence
stands proves that the clerk of the court had
consulted a precedent The verb is in the
present tense and third person, and the
word of the pronouncing judge are not put
down exactly as they dropped from his lips.
Even the prayer for mercy IL properly
omitted, as it Is no part OF the judgment.
So far all is unusually well. But for every
thing besides, il IL plain from the journaliz-
ing of the proceedings in the past tense, that
the clerks knowledge Of the principles aud
forms OF criminal law was too limited to
serve him in applying his precedent to the
proceedings with entire advantage. The
details of the trial, embracing IA they do the
bringing of the prisoner into court; the
direction of the court to draw jury from
the proper box the clerks compliance with
il the qualification of the jurors as "sober,
intelligent, and judicious men !" the polling
of the Jury, and much more OF the sort, show
that the officer was too intent on the small
beer of the case to attend to essentials; for
the entries seem to have been made with
view to obviate some OF the exceptions taken
| in Dunn .. the commonwealth. However
| that may be, we find no entry that the
prisoner was demanded wnetner ne nau any
Thing to say why sentence OF death should
not be pronounced on him, the absence OF
which was ruled 10 be fatal. In fact, there
is nothing on the docket to show that even
| the prisoner was present when he was sem
| fenced, except the supplementary memoir
| andum that she was present in court during
| every stage OF the trial, from the time of his
| arraignment up to the time when the sen
| tence was passed by the Honorable Ellis
| Lewis, president judge OF the court on him.
| Indeed, the ph0ie trial, from ITS commence
| Deut to its termination, lpdS dccOrdthg 10
| ldio."
| A record is constituted of proper and legiti-
| mate elements set down in their order for
il IL certainly not law, that all the gossip a
| clerk or prothonotary writes down in his
docket, ipsO JdctO, becomes the very voice OF
| undeniable truth. The judges OF a court OF
error must determine tor themselves, and
| consequently on iacis instead OF sweeping
| assertions. The premises to found sentence
| of death are set forth in l Chntys Grim
| L0lO T2O, and the form OF the entire record is
| given in Black Com. Ap. ], in which there
| is a demand OF the prisoner III he hath ol
| knoweth any thing ID say wherefore th'
| said justices ought not, on tho premises anC
verdict, to proceed to Judgment and execu
ton against him" together with his answer
that he A" nothing further saith unless az Ii,
before had said" With us a full record il
seldom, perhaps never, formally made up
but tho docket, which stands in its place
| must contain the substantial parts of il, iron
which, together with the other records il
the office, such record might be formed
l l., in