In re Wiltbank

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Wiltbank

30 F. Cas. 257, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 282, 1876 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24

DecidedSeptember 4, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 257 (In re Wiltbank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Wiltbank, 30 F. Cas. 257, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 282, 1876 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 (E.D. Pa. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

CADWALADER, District Judge,

said that, under the evidence, he thougnt it the duty of the jury to convict the defendant. They could not do otherwise, unless they found that at the time of the occurrence charged as mutiny, the captain of the brig was incapable of navigating the vessel, because he was so intoxicated as to be irrational, and of this he saw no evidence in the case. In criminal cases the jury had the power to decide questions of law and fact, but always in conformity with the law and legal evidence, and they had no right to give an arbitrary decision of any question. To find that on this occasion the captain was incapable from drunkenness from navigating the vessel would be extremely arbitrary. He was willing to assume as much responsibility in this case as the law would permit, and therefore would accept the verdict of guilty, accompanied by a declaration that but for the further instruction of the court the jury would not have agreed upon a verdict. Such a verdict was accordingly rendered, coupled with a recommendation to mercy.

The defendant was permitted to depart on his own bail, the judge saying that the importance of the case had led him to the course he had pursued, and he was not only willing, but anxious. to hear an argument for a new trial, and correct whatever error he may have committed.

The jury, which consisted of eleven members, stood on Wednesday and Thursday six for conviction to five for acquittal; yesterday seven for conviction to four for acquittal; this morning nine for conviction to two for acquittal; and from noon until they finally came into court ten for conviction to one for acquittal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CADWALADER, District Judge,

said that, under the evidence, he thougnt it the duty of the jury to convict the defendant. They could not do otherwise, unless they found that at the time of the occurrence charged as mutiny, the captain of the brig was incapable of navigating the vessel, because he was so intoxicated as to be irrational, and of this he saw no evidence in the case. In criminal cases the jury had the power to decide questions of law and fact, but always in conformity with the law and legal evidence, and they had no right to give an arbitrary decision of any question. To find that on this occasion the captain was incapable from drunkenness from navigating the vessel would be extremely arbitrary. He was willing to assume as much responsibility in this case as the law would permit, and therefore would accept the verdict of guilty, accompanied by a declaration that but for the further instruction of the court the jury would not have agreed upon a verdict. Such a verdict was accordingly rendered, coupled with a recommendation to mercy.

The defendant was permitted to depart on his own bail, the judge saying that the importance of the case had led him to the course he had pursued, and he was not only willing, but anxious. to hear an argument for a new trial, and correct whatever error he may have committed.

The jury, which consisted of eleven members, stood on Wednesday and Thursday six for conviction to five for acquittal; yesterday seven for conviction to four for acquittal; this morning nine for conviction to two for acquittal; and from noon until they finally came into court ten for conviction to one for acquittal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 257, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 282, 1876 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wiltbank-paed-1876.