The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1901-12-03
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1901.

BECAUSE Judge Garrison, at the trial of
John Young, charged the jury according
to law, the prisoners counsel claims he
made an error and will ask to have the
verdict set aside. 1t is the same old idea
that actuated counsel at the beginning of
the case. Convinced that their client was
guilty, they interposed petty objections
and secured a postponement of the trial
When it did take place the verdict was
rendered according to the evidence. One
of the counsel has admitted that he fear
ed to openly suggest anything but YER
dict of murder in the first degree because
he knew the law would not uphold such
a contention. Now the higher court is
asked to set aside righteous finding at
the request of counsel who know that
the law has been sustained. 1t is work
ing on hope that something may hap
pen to save the prisoner from the fate he
justly deserves and, incidentally, make a
reputation for counsel Lawyers some
times are to be applauded for their efforts
in behalf of their clients where there is
an element of doubt in the verdict but in
case of this kind we fail to see anything
to commend. Even if the action of Judge
Garrison is sustained, we have the knowl-
edge that Burlington county has been put
to great expense for no good end. For
it matters not which way the decision is
given, the fact remains that strenuous
efforts have been put forth not merely to
save life, but a serious blow has been
aimed at the safety of our homes and our
lives. If John Young by any means es-
capes the punishment which he Justly de-
serves, it is a notice to all that the sup
posed security of home, because it is "a
mans castle. is myth, and it will be
perfectly lawful for any one to lead to a
house burglars who may become murder
ers and then escape death punishment be-
cause they did not do the act" That is
a theory that not one of those who have
agitated clemency for John Young would
have put into practice if it had affected
them personally. Suppose that this Grim
1nal had led others to the house of the
parents of either CT the lawyers for the
defence and there had been murder of any
of the inmates; would the effort for
Communication or new trial have been as
great as now2 We leave others to
answer. Another point in our opinion is
deserving of condemnation. To try and
save Young and to desert Brown is heart
less. If duty demanded the action for
one it equally required it for the other
Both men were tried for the same offence
and the fee for their defence comes from
the same quarter. In the case of Clymer,
who entered the home of woman at
night and killed her, Judge Garrison
charged the jury to the same effect as he
did that in the Young case and one of the
lawyers for the latter then had charge of
the states side. He approved heartily of
that charge. The words of Judge CARR
son then were to the point and are especi-
ally applicable now He said "a mans
home is his castle and at night it is his
sanctuary. The severity of the law is for
the protection of a persons home" But
now we have the situation reversed. Ac-
cording to the present state of affairs a
mans home is the prey of burglars and
murderers and if one of them leads his
pals to the scene he must not be held &C
countable for what follows. This view is
neither law justice nor common sense.