The Delaware Register, Or, Farmers', Manufacturers' & Mechanics' Advocate

Blasphemy.—The Lancaster Intelligencer contains the following account of a late trial in Lancaster County, for Blasphemy.

"The most interesting trial was that of Samuel Sharp, for blasphemy. The words charged in the indictment, as spoken by him, were of such a nature, and so vile and abominable, that it would, we think, be improper to publish them. The words spoken were proved by several respectable witnesses, though most of the witnesses believed that the prisoner was under the influence of intoxicating liquors at the time he so expressed himself.

"Mr. W. Hopkins, for the defendant, called several witnesses to prove that defendant was occasionally, or in some degree, deranged.

"Mr. Champneys, on the part of the prosecution, opened in an elegant and interesting speech; showed the evil tendency of such expressions, both in a religious and in a moral point of view.

"Mr. Hopkins next addressed the jury on the part of the defendant, with an eloquence worthy of a much better cause—relying, principally, on the defendant's incapacity to commit crime, he being, by the act of Providence, deprived of the power of reason, or discriminating between right and wrong.

The case was concluded in a short speech from Mr. Parke the attorney general, when judge Franklin, with his usual ability, addressed the jury—stated the nature of the charge, gave the definition of Blasphemy, and dwelt upon the heinousness of the offence, both in a moral and religious point of view, and as affecting the essential interests of civil society. He said, that wilfully, premeditatedly and despitefully to blaspheme, or speak loosely or profanely, of Almighty God, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the Scriptures of truth, has been a statutable offence in Pennsylvania for more than 128 years; that there was nothing in our manners or institutions, which should render such a law, and the punishment denounced by it, less necessary now, than when it was enacted, since we stand equally in need now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue which help to bind society together. That if the words were spoken in the manner laid in the indictment, they imported malice, and were punishable without more, unless it should be proved that the defendant was so far deprived of his reason, as to be unable to distinguish right from wrong. That a defence resting solely on the ground of insanity, is to be strictly scrutinized, and should be clearly proved. That the judgment of the jury must be made up from the facts adduced in evidence, and not from the opinions of witnesses, unless accompanied by the facts or incidents on which those opinions are founded. That criminal acts done by a man, in a temporary state of derangement are not excusable on that ground, if the derangement be occasioned by voluntary intoxication, and that want of intellect cannot be recognised as a defence, unless it be such as to render the party incapable of distinguishing good from evil."

The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and the man was fined twenty-six dollars and costs.