Rensselaer Union, Volume 2, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 October 1869 — The Trial of Griffin—A Scathing Rebuke [ARTICLE]

The Trial of Griffin—A Scathing Rebuke

No trial has been held in this' that has created as much excitement as the case of the Engineer Griffin, which has just resulted in a verdict (If acquittal. The law in the case is very plain, as “will lie seen by the charge of Judge Barrett to the jury, published in yesterday'a-Kms# ; but the good character of the accused, and the plea of his able counsel that a man in a sleeping or somnambulistic state was not , responsible for his acts, had sufficient . weight with the jury to • cause them to i render a verdict of “ not guilty," notwithstanding the Judge instructed them very pointedly to arrive at an opposite conclusion. Railroad men generally sympathize with Griffin, as do the citizens of this place. Judge Barrett is furious over tlib verdict, and considers it an outrage on the community. At the opening of the court yesterday morning Judge Barrett ordered the Clerk to call the names of the jury in the Griffin case, and directed that they be seated on his left. The Clerk then proceeded to can * the names, and the jurors responded as they were called until the whole panel had taken their seats. The jury knew they were under the ban of the Judge’s displeasure on account of their action, the previous evening, but they were not probably prepared for the pouring out 1 of in- \ dignation which was soon to bftaat r forth from his Honor. The court room was full, and the unusual proceeding had arrested and excited the-interest of every one present, and eager curiosity was aroused as to what was coming next. Judge Barrett, addressing' the jury, said: “ Gentlemen ; You last night returned into court, after a hearing or two days, with a verdict of not guilty in the case of the Commonwealth against James Griffin. This was not expected, and your verdict was against law, against justice, and pri outrage against humanity. You violated the obligations of your oath—a plain, simple obligation to render a verdlctaccording to the evidence. Instead of that you rendered a verdict against every particle of evidence. The cause of tlra defendant was abandoned by his counsel. 1 Drowning men will catch at straws. The theory or the defense is unknown to the law, and the counsel for the defendant did not believe it themselves. I was, and-still afn, astonished at' your verdict. I am astonished that you should in. this way set aside the law and violate your oaths; and I trust that the spirits of the dead, dying, 1 rleiding and burnt victims of Mast lldpe will rebuke you as long as you live. We have no power to cure the great wrong which you have inflicted on the community." The Judge continued at considerable length to recount the horrors of thtrdrckdful disaster at Mast Hope, and lb ask tho jury if thay had no sympathy for tlie sufferers there, but must waste it all bn the prisoner, who was the author of the great calamity. Ho concluded Ills rebuke! to the astonished jurymen, tvs follows:. t . “In future I hope that you will feel a proper regard for your oaths. You are now discharged from any further duty at this court. You are not fit to sit as jurymen. I will hot try causes -before such* j«ry." .... T T. Mr. Jessup, of counsel for prosecution, made a motion that Griffin bo; hfl<J ,jn recognizance to await proceedings against him on an .indictment for iuifslaugkijr under the common law. After, soup; discussion by counsel on either sido, the Judge denied the motion. Griffin was then released from custody, and immediately started for his home at Susquehanna depot. —MilforcL CVr. H. Y. Herald.