The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1889-08-21

1
After few preliminary remarks judy
Blef read the following clear, full, fair an.
comprehensive oppinicn.
oFiSaox OF TKx COURT.
CoxxoSwrAIra Ne 2MAr
vs.. SEssIoS lose.
JosEFH NiceLY & noMlcIDE.
Sur Motion and Rale for new trial
Tie mo-;on was arguei ant testimony
| taken On Euies read On tile Ism aud l4t.
/ days Of August los9 before ,uil Bench.
after beznDg able and lengthy argument
Of learned counsel Tor and azalaist TIE rule
{ the Court gave such furtasr oue ami tareiu
: consideration Of the case = lis importance
q niai.Ged. We carefully examined the tss
tinlouy produced Ca The trial aud lhat pro
( duc'sd a. this aeaylng. and Wlth like eaT'
reviewed cur funBgs on Tie admission Anl
/ -rlecuOn Oi evidence. the charge deiiverel
I ~ Tie Jary AID our answer tO Pulnts submit
/ ted Inc conciaslvn now arrived al is basel
/ on Cue consideration OF the verdict, The eyi
denoe On tFai. the evidence heard on thl
{ motion for Lev irlal, the argument Of learn
I ed counsel, the law as gwen 70 Ihe Jury anl
( tie Jaw governing new Trials.
Judge Rodgers, IA Commonwealth J5
Flauns-an, W q ~. says: Granting
new trials does nui depend upon the whiH
I or caprice Of the judge. bat upon we'll ~
: tabiisned ard llsnu4Iuentai principals q
Jaw We are not % lose sigat VI TIE rale
I thar he tugri Jullgss tie competency of a4s fsf
/ tiaoRg, white lie jury a.oAe aeteI niIDes the
credlOliIfy OF witnesses and judges TIE egca
I q ne etitlel.cs- Keeping Ihvse principle n
q.
/ reasons assigned for new trial
/ Twelve reasons We're assigned, with :
( specifications under No. II, U ander No. 3
I 8 under No. and 5 speelhcations OF after
Z discovered evidence-wIrh q reference 10 y
or more objections made 10 the argumen,
I VI assistant counsel OF COMMONWEALTH.
The lst reason was that the verdict was
against he Weisil of evidence.
II the jury had believed the testimony Of
{ tie deiei.se, a. 10 she ailci the hat and the
cost, au1 dlsbeiIeved that u tie Common
wealth - TO the. identity 0f the prisoners, The
lai. the patch On the coaf, lSc., their verdict
CERTAINLY would have been that 0f nOt guilty.
Bat the jury, a. judges Of the creii0luty Df
tue wltnssssz ara Tie effect OF the evidence,
found against the defendants on evidences The
Court Jacged TO be competent The Count
can nol say u was against the weight Of egi-
dence. This reason fails.
The = reason was that the verdict was
against the law.
10 warrant grantinga new trial On this
ground, It must be made to appear that the
seraict was against the lay - laid down by
the Court Il has lot beer made 10 so ap-
pear. II there wss srrUrta the lsw as Land
d. Sn, slch error would not be corrected on
this MASON but the reason alleging miscl-
rection- This reason fails
be 1-~ IL.
huencod and prsjudieed 5y the miSbeLayl0r
OF The audience
No testimony is produced 70 sustain this.
and the Court must pass on the qGeslion
raised from its own observation. u - true,
the audience few times seemed 20 DC car
rleG away by some unnecessary and improp-
er side remarks BY counsel on both sides,
out On being reproved. perfect order was
maintained, and, on the whole, the audi
euee, considering the crowded room and the
character Of the c4se on trial. was rs vel
behaved, and We think better than Is usual
M criminal courts. THIS reason Is not
sustained
Tne Ga 9th aad Itth we consider together.
The eth was that the jury did not take
time 10 deliberate The 9th thai the Jury
was coeTced into rendering a verdict by pub
lac sentiment, which was agerse 10 the de-
isndants, the specification being, thet ID
tie jury room one Of the jurors said il We
nnd a verdict OF l0f guilty we will be moo
oed and another that there was no Use
10 consider the evidence Of the defendants
witnesses, fOr they would not believe them
any way And the lIth. That after having
been re-eharsed and sent back they did not
deiioerate, but that one vi their number
wrote the finding guilty OF murder in the
hrst degree, on piece of paper and called
OUT come on when they proceeded %
return the verdict"
The kcgai presumption Is that the jurors per-
formed ffesr da,g according % lteu Odtis Is
takea- To sPeI Ibis presumption. one OF
The tipstaves IN charge was called, and bis
testimony taken 10 sustain the specification.
Ills testimony Is substantially that he
heard remarks made oy citizens as the jury
was going 20 meal. one OF which was. -
vlsh [ could give them point OF two about
n heard Il said ~ a boarding house
loud enough f9r 3 juror 20 have heard L
iisat the NIceiys were relsIed To jesse
james Being outside the jury room
heari their tiseussiou N part. one would
asa what they wouid do a00ut the Doctor :
testimony; another sand there was u1tnIng
IA H. One sad If We dont convict these
men Of murder in tiie irss degn-e the cIti-
zsls would mob Us When sent back by the
Count they took no time to consider OF ID
Fuie- One Of the jurors besan "a ETile at
tne aale- ! was Dot glne two minutes; he
was writing when / ulUie back. He dicn I
resd what he bad written, took the paper
and sad come On, and they then returned
the verdict
Mr. Davis, one Of the Jurors was called
as 4 witness by the Common wealth, and his
testimony was read He says substan-
italy was a juror: did not hear any
one say that i We don't convict of muir
der OF the first degree the citizens viii
mob Us II II had been said loud enough to
have been heard outside. J ihink | would
have heard it as uror. Something was
SAID IN which the word mob was used. but I
cicn { pay much attention. One did say af-
ter Ee had agreed thai II We were wrong be
cruid not forgive himself but the evidence
Is 50 strong We must 10 our duty. one did
say after we had agreed, il Ne let these men
loose after hearing ali the evidence, We ought
to be fnobbed.
II IS unnecessary here TO inquire how far
tie unwsiranted intrusion of a tip staff upon
the privacy OF the deliberations OF Jury may
sf.lct the verdict, as il don't appear that III
juEy resG Gi;ed-
Il has been held .'tbat mere acts Of indis-
creiion or impropriefy Of jurors or others
vii. not warrant setIinz aside veniict snd
granting a ne9 trial = tie-inpa8t;aliy q tie
jary gqs not s5cr'esi liaebs
Though the law Is vigilant in guarding
and pTeserying tie purity Of jaTy trials, il
viii not for light ard trihiag causes imPugn
the integrity OF iuries.
The iale seems 70 be well settled that, "to
warrant setting aside a verdict Of jury
-and granting new trial upon the ground
"of irrezsularity and misconduct Of jury. II
must be either shown as a fact. or fsucd as
"a conclusion of law that injury resulted
from such misconduct
Each Of the Jurors when sworn r1isf d.re
sais be could decide the case on the evidence
unaffected by anything be bad heard or
re11. aud each when swDrn As a juror sw0re
that he woCld Try the isssie j9ined and true
deiiverance make. &c This. with the eyi-
dence OF one Of The jurors. just read and
the tsct that the j1ry was polled ought, in
the absence Of stronger testimony than that
prodacei en The hearing. be sufficient an
swer 70 the charge of prejudice or miscon-
duct Of the jury
That the jury were coerced by public SEN
timerf. whicsI was averse to the defendants,
j. alleged. hut TIE only thing apparent. IS
the fscs. dDsbtsess. tha1 pnblic excitement
was great. Il goal1 hardly he otherwise in
any peacea,3ie cennu1l1y. after &C afro
cisuz crime had been c0Eansit.ed.
II wzs 10 grsater during the trial than it
wss from the day of the homicide up 70 the
trial, and the prevailing excitement oil along