Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1846-09-10
MARTINsBURG VIRGINIA, THURSDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER TO-


himself within the jurisdiction Of the State, BY
remaining there. The decision OF the Court
on this question was, if we remember Alright.
that ii was not TO be enqured ho,e he got to
New York, bat being there he was liable 10 its
laws, and must give bail.
The point in regard to his liability TO be tried
under the criminal offence, was taken up TO
the Supreme Court of New York, and by it
the decision Of the Court below was reversed !;
the Supreme Court holding that "personal
presence at the place where crime is perpe-
trated IS not indispensable to make one prin-
cipal offender in its commission The Chief
Justice, IN giving his opinion, said
''The fraud may have originated and been
concocted elsewhere--but il became mature
and took effect in the city Of New York, for
there the false pretences were used with sue
cess, the signatures and money of the persons
delrauded obtained at that place. The crime
was therefore committed in the city Of New
FORK, and not elsewhere, G r. S., GIT, S53 !;
| Chit. c. Law, a Amer. Ed.) 1911 Rex. Y.
Buttery mentioned by Chief Justice Abbott in
the King v. Burdet b S, A, 95.) And of
this crime, thus committed within the limits Of
this State, taking the facts charged and admit
ted to be true, the defendant in my opinion
was plainly guilty, although at the times of its
preparation he was out Of this State, and
within the limits of the State of Ohio. The
intent to cheat was his; the fraudulent contri-
vance was his; and by agents acting within
this State for him and under his authority and
guidance, themselves innocent of all fraud,
were the false pretences used, and the crime
fully consummated. He, and he alone, was
therefore the guilty party"
The common law maxim, that ''what a
man does by another he does by himself" was
held to apply TO the criminal as well as to civil
cases, with this qualification, however, that
''where the agent is guilty actor in the com
mission of felony, the law makes him the prin-
cipa offender; and the one by whom he was
employed or instigated, as, if absent, but as an
accessory before the fact"
Upon the point that this doctrine affirms or
implies an extension of the laws beyond the
territorial limits of the State, the Court declar-
ed there was no such extension, and said:
"What he did in Ohio was not, nor could
it be- an infraction oil our law or crime against
this State. He was indicted for what was
done here, and done by himself True, the
defendant was not personally within this
State but he was there IN purpose and design,
and acted by his authorized agents. ON fdcit
per alum, .tacit per Sc. The agents employed
were innocent, and he alone was guilty."
And the Chief Justice thus summed up the
decision -
SIN auhorising another TO act for him, the
principal so far voluntarily submits himself to
the law Of the place where the authorised act
is TO be performed. This is coniessedly so for
all civil purposes. If an act thus authorised,
results in wrong TO an individual, his right to
redress against the principal, though absent,
is undoubted. As to the person injured, the
local law was violated by the absent wrong
doer. and if the act was also a violation of the
local criminal law,is the author and procurer of
the deed guitless? Does the law hold to have
been within its jurisdiction so far as respects
the civil remedy, but not for the purpose of
punishment? confess | see no ground on
which the distinction can be sustained. An
absent party procures an act 10 be done with
in this State and so far as respects criminal or
civil responsibility, | think he should not be
allowed TO say he is not amenable TO the law.
He clearly would be so if the act had been
done by himself in person within the limits Of
the State, and it is precisely the same if
done by an innocent agent"
This decision is of the first importance; and
ii it is affirmed by the higher tribunals, and
shall become the settled law of all the States,
it vii! go very far towards stopping ofieHces
which are now perpetrated with impunity, and
against which no guards can be erected by the
States, where the offence is committed. The
offence charged against ADAMS is one of these,
where money or goods are obtained by false
pretences in letters sent from party living III
one State 10 party living in another. Ano-
ther Of this class OF offences, is that committed
by the circulation, through the post office, Of
incendiary papers, which are now habitually
sent from places in the North TO offices in the
South A case Of this kind we remember 10
have occurred some years ago, where noto-
rious offender in New York was indicted BY a
grand jury in Georgia, and he was demanded
as fugitive from the justice of that State
The demand was denied, on the ground that
the person indicted was not within the juris
diction of Georgia at the time OF the aledged
offence, and could not. therefore, be "fugi
tive" in the view of the Constitution OF the u.
States But if it shall become tho settled law,
that the personal presence of man in State
is not necessary TO make him liable to its laws
for an offence which he procured to be com
mitted in that State, and that the law will pre-
sumo him TO have been actually present and
TO have personally perpetrated the offence, all
such persons, so charged as criminals, will be
held 10 be fugitives, in the sense in which that
word is used in the constitution OF the United
States, and be, of course, liable to be arrested
and delivered up on the demand of the Cover
nor of the State whose laws they have viola
ted
This application of the principle of the law,
as laid down by the ". York Supreme Court,
seems to us to be so clearly right, that we do
not see how it is 10 be avoided, even if it were
attempted to be avoided, in any similar case
where the laws of State have been violated.