Hide Article Text (OCR)
We give space to the following com munication as an expression of opin ion in the Liberty case. It never before occurred in Wells county that such an intense and un founded prejudice was worked up against any man being tried for his liberty as in the case of John Liberry. This prejudice arose mainly from false rumors, ignorance of the facts, and the lack of appreciation of civil rights and liberty, and it was talked by a great many, that a new trial for the defend ant was too expensive, forgetting what it cost our forefathers to secure to every man, black or white, old or young, pauper or millionaire and the fool and the wise, a fair and impartial trial by a jury of his peers. The Con stitution of Indiana wisely provides that “All courts shall be open; justice shall be administered freely and with out purchase; completely and without denial; speedily and without delay. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. Excessive bail shall not be required. Excessive fines shall not be imposed. Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. All penalties shall be proportionate to the nature of the offense. The penal code shall be founded on the princi ples of reformation and not of vin dictive justice.” Let any citizen look at these provisions of our constitution and give them but a moment's thought and then say if you begrudge John Siberry a new trial, when the highest judicial of the state has declared that he was entitled to a new trial. The first jury held that he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, purposely killed his wife, and fixed his punish ment at fifteen years in the Prison North. There was a great mistake in this verdict, for if he purposely killed his wife it was murder. It is true voluntary manslaughter consists in intentionally killing a human being, but upon a “sudden heat.” The evi dence showed no ‘sudden heat’ nor no heat at all. The last jury found by their verdict that the defendant was guilty of in voluntary manslaughter, that he did not purposely kill his wife, and fixed the penalty at twelve years in the Prison North. There is something wrong with this verdict as to the pen alty,if the penalty of the first is right, for deducting the time served by the defendant. The time under the last verdict is about seven months shorter than the first, when there is as much difference between killing a person purposely and killing one carelessly as there is between taking a chicken without leave, and the crime of burg lary; entering a dwelling in the night time and committing robbery. John Siberry suffered as intensely as most any man ever suffered at the death of his wife, and is made to suffer fifteen long years in prison, for a careless ac cident, if the verdict of the last jury is true. The expense of the last trial will likely be about $800), and where is the man who has such little apprecia tion of the rights and liberties of a citizen, and with a heart so small that he would deprive a citizen of a new trial, when the Supreme court of Indi ana says he is entitled to it, on ac count of the expense of another trial. If a man who objected to a new trial for John siberry on the grounds of its expense, has a son in the same situa tion, he would not think of such a thing, if he had the common instincts of a father.
Newspaper Details
Bluffton Banner
Bluffton, Indiana, US
Wed, Jun 28, 1893
Page 4
Full Page
Clipped by
Cari W.
