Year: 1861

JOHN CATHCART VS.. COMMONWEALTH.


IIn this case we have already given what
purported 10 he the opinion of the Supreme
Court, as copied from Philadelphia paper.
But what We published turns out to be only a
bout the half of it. We therefore publish be-
low the full opinion of the Supreme Court as
it was delivered. 1t will be satisfactory to the
Court and Jury, before whom the case was
tried. to know that their verdict and Judgment
are fully sustained, and we believe that many
of our readers will wish to read the entire o.
pinion of our highest judicial tribunal in a
case that has attracted SO much attention.l


OPINION OF THE COURT BY sTRoNG,J j.


The consequences of our decision in this
case are so momentous to the plaintiff in er-
ror, that we have felt constrained TO examine
the record with minute caution. Our review
has forced upon us the conviction that there
is nothing which would justify US in sending
the case back to another jury. 1t appears to
have been most carefully tried. Nothing was
withheld from the accused to which he was
legally entitled, and he received every advan-
tage in the admission of evidence and in the
inLtruction given to the jury which he had
right to claim.


Before proceeding to consideration of the
errors assigned in detail, it may not be out of
place to repeat the remark often made, that our
duty in such cases as this is confined to adju-
dication upon the errors of law which appear
on the record. Outside OF that we cannot
look. We are not authorized to grant new
trials, unless the record exhibits that mistakes
of the law have been committed. In no other
case have we power to interfere with the ver-
dict of jury. We could not even if we were
satisfied they had found enormously. These
observations are not new. They have fire.
quently been made heretofore. Thus, in jew
ell VS.. Commonwealth, 10 Harris, SO, it was
said that san error not apparent on the face
of the recorded proceedings, however gross
and improper it may have been, is not a sub
ject of review here, and the prisoner has no
more right to expect relief, on account of such,
Irregularities, from us, than from any other
five citizens of tho State, who invested
with no judicial authority at all.' Similar
remarks were made in Fife, Jones, and Stew
art VS.. the Commonwealth. Casey, 429. 1t
is mistaken opinion, sometimes entertained,
that in criminal cases our powers are greater
than they are in civil. 1t is not so. When
the life of human being may be dependent
on our decision, there is always enough to in
duce MS very carefully to scan the record and
inquire whether he has been deprived of any,
thing secured to him by the law, by which he
might havs been benefited. But in criminal,
as well as in civil cases, Or inquiries must be
confined to the record, and in both classes of
cases there is but one rule of construction.
In both there is presumption that the pro-
ceedings were regular, and it is incumbent
upon the plaintiff in error to show by the re-
cord that errors were committed before We
can interfere. If this were not SO, the admin
istration of criminal justice would be impos
sible. We are not so TO administer the GRIM
inal law to make it an impenetrable shield
for the guilty.


Turning now to the specific averments of
error, the first which we notice is the allega-
tion that the jurors were not properly sworn.
The record, however, recites that they were
cali sworn or affirmed respectively to try"
&c. This, of course, raises the presumption
that they were properly sworn or affirmed.
y o exception was taken to the mode of quail
fcation, and there is nothing before indica-
ting any irregularity. Our paper book,
deed, contains part of the opinion of the
Court below upon the motion for new trial,
in which it is stated that the jury were sworn
Jointly and severally, instead of severally, but
such an opinion is part of the record, and
it has often been held that the record cannot
be corrected by it. Even if it could, the
same opinion shows that no objection was made
to the manner in which the oath or affirmation
administered. This assignment, there
fore, points to no error of which we can TAX
notice.


Another specification of error is, that the
record does not show that the prisoner had
counsel at the trial. 1t is based upon an al
legged presumption against the regularity of
The proceedings-a presumption directly pp-
poslte to that which we have shown to exist.
IL assumes that those rights of the prisoner
were denied him which the record does not
snow aihrmatively were granted. AS we'll
might 1t be assumed that the Court charged
me jury enormously, and the Commonwealth
oe required to prove that the charge was in
All points correct ever before it was attacked.
me right TO be heard by himself and coun-
sci is doubtless Constitutional right, and if
IL mad been denied, there would have been
error; but we are not to presume that it was
denied because the record does not exhibit
ihe TACT that it recorded. There
many rights of an accused person, some Con-
s'thtional and others not, of which the record
takes no notice: such as the right to compul-
soty process for witnesses, the right to call
witness or to cross examine those of the pros
scGtion, and the right to be heard by himself
. anu counsel is one of them. The safety Of
.ne accused is not imperriled by the silence
VI the record, for If any Of these rights be de-
niea, there is an easy method of bringing up
On The record the fact of the denial


Another assignment of error is to the refus-
- oi the Court TO grant new trial. 1t has so