Year: 1867

lupTlbO0mentS,' (2 Smiths l7D) and this very
pret the law.


been deprived OF his liberty for indefinite period
OK Oh time. ~ the will of the prosecutor. or by the
law BY unlocking The prison door, secured personal
liberty: but only In case Of ,OronarH Imprisonment
sonment Is not wrongful the act does not apply Il it
become laws which in It's practical operation would
enuangeT personal safety property and life and OPP


our tribunals Of last resort have evidently followed
letter Of this law AS far back as the year 1901 the
supreme Court in Respab VS.. Arnold, 3 Yates 2e6
9esses on! Of court would not enttle him ais


h eydnt q. te en9 OF Two terms ana heren the court
the letter of the law.


w. s66. decided in 1898, II held that person labor
ing under an Infectious disease is entitled OF right
70 be tried at the second term and here again the
Court departed from the letter, and adhered to the
Allegheny county Is s. and r. sO4 It was determined
that q prisoner who stands Indicted for aiding and
r1 y al ihe second term s entitled to his discharge


SO in Clark VS.. the Commonwealth, Casey, 135, the
last reported case upon the subject the present Chief
that prisoner could only claim his discharge under
Competent tribunal before which he could have been
indicted and tried, for in the language OF this learned
and oppression of prosecutors and to relieve OroHQr
imprisonment, not to embarrass the administration of
the criminal law: not to relieve righteous tmprson-
ment, and to defeat public Justice"


In further illustration Of the undoubted soundness
upon ITS spirit, and not its letter, may mention
District Attorney Of fifty men charged with murder
mposslble). All could not be tried in two terms Shall
ten or twenty or thirty Oe discharged? We answer.
according to its spirit.


Why, then upon principle authority, ought this


The witness whose testimony was important and
his reason; Ought the Commonwealth, therefore, to
lose his evidence and the cause and before an effort
could be made to restore the witness to mental health?
~ An o, nect9us m % disease P,eyened in the Common
of prisoner although he demanded it at the second
term; ought not the same principle to apply where
ton? and why should different rule be adopted when
the disease affects In outward manifestations, the


1t is needless go further. The weight of authority
which is, that where an Inevitable necessity, legal
physical or mental exists which prevents trial, the
necessity compelled the continuance of this case the
that his trial was conducted with the utmost caution
and resulted in verdict with which the judges. espe
case are entirely satisfied.


The judgment ought not to be arrested. and the pre-
sent motion Is therefore overruled.


The District Attorney then addressed the
Court, saying that on the 10Th of October, 1866,
a true bill was found by the Grand Jury,
charging Gottleib Williams with the murder or
Eliza M. Miller, and upon the 18th of March,
a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree
and as the duty of his office as District Attorney
required, he applied to the Court to haEe the
sentence of the law pronounced upon the pri-
soner.



why the sentence of death should not be passed
upon him.


He replied:-"I have great deal to say but it
would be of no use. 1 am not guilty, is all 1
have to say"


Judge Ludlow then made few very impress
sive remarks upon the position of the prisoner
the Nervousness of his crime, and the awful
fate that was his, in the following words:-
Sn Tsd Ar the me PS Of a sh
premeditated murder of Eliza M Miller, and although
defended ably and earnestly by your counsel jury of
your own selection found you guilty of murder in the
The Court has reflected upon the evidence sub
mited in your case, and have doubt of the
0 haSn


S snm Re the cruel blows which
your right arm Inflicted upon aged and detenseess
almost severed her head from her body. An All-wise
and omniscent Being permitted human win witnesses to
were clearly established which furnished the success
sive links in that iron chain which held you in Its


We do not desire to protract this painful scene by
tragedy, but we cannot help saying that you in
aGiet home. WSere she had lived for qaaPter Of
century. beneath the shadow of the very house in


That woman had taken an interest in your own


h@a a you az sG hsG % & y6ur
today have slept IN d,shonored crave but for the
providence of just God.


Nor is this your first oense for our records prove
that another human being has fallen victim to your


Our duty, though painful is plain; as ministers of
justice we execute command Of statute Of
that Divine law which declares that, whoso sheddeth


You sent your victim into eternity in moment,
and before she could utter single prayer Human
justice will before long, consign you to the scaOld
and the grave but time will be given you to repent
that august Being before Whose bar you must stand
and whose decree is final, and to all eternity irrevo-


Nothing now remains for us to do but to pronounce
the Judgment of the law, which judgment is (here all


4aaI Sottiet5 WtHtans the prisoner at me bar, be
hd from Ohence he came and from thence TO The place
OF eT6cutton, and that he be there hanged on the neck
have mercy on his soul


Supreme Court-Chiet Justice Woodward,
and Judges Thompson, Strong, Read, and
Agnew The following cases were argued


Blood vs.. Marcellor ct al. Hooker VS.. Sims.


Court of Common Pleas-Judges Allison
and Pierce, The Orphans Court motion list


Court of Quarter ssssIons-Judge Brew
business was before this
Court. The business OF the February term,
which came to q close to-day, was wound up.
The usual number OF recognizances was for
feited and ordered to be sued out. The April
term will begin on Monday next, az which time
q new venire ofJurors will be returnable.


Court OF Quarter sessiOns-Judge Lud-
loW.-Habeas corpus cases were before the


The Commonwealth ex rel. Stevenson
ct al, submitted to the Court upon the evil
dence taken before the Alderman, and upon
written argument. The charge against the
defendants was false Pretenses, and the testi;
al the trial of the Monongolia OIL Company
case, which has been several times fully re-
II will be remembered that the defendants
were at that trial acquitted OF the charge, but
ordered to pay the costs. The result of the
consideration Of lhe Court was that the Bench
was divided in opinion as to whether the evil
dence brought out such false pretense as is
meant bp the statute, the majority being OF
opinion that IL did; that though the defendants
have been tried upon q similar charge, still
the one now tried is another district one against
other parties, aud should be tried by "a fufy:
and, finally that II was case for the fury, and