The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-06-08

motion for a new trial.
The two first assignments of error relate
to the testimony introduced by the State,
for the purpose of showing the original
wrongful. fraudulent and felonious intent
of the defendant-that the bill of sale
was procured 10y false and fraudulent rep
reservations, without any consideration.
and under pretence of protecting the title
and possession of her property for her
benefit. from a weak minded old woman,
under his care and protection, was certain
~ competent evidence TO be submitted 10
the jury to establish the defendants Origi-
nal intent.-Wharton's American Or. l..
1855 Bishops Or. L. 43l; , East p. c.
GSj and G9j.
The third assignment of errors. embraces
the instructions given by the court at the
request Of counsel for the State. and the
fourth assignment embraces those asked
by the defendant 5 counsel and refused.
We think the instructions, as given to
the jury, taken together, present no
ground Of error for which the Judgment
should be reversed.
Ii is insisted that the 9th instruction for
the State was erroneous. That mstruc-
ton substantially asserts the position,
that one leaving this State with the telon-
ious design Of stealing slaves in Alabama,
and bringing them into this State, and
here converting them to his own use and
who carries that design into execution,
both in Alabama and Mississippi, l.
guilty "a charged in the bill of indictment
of stealing here. Ii Is said that while 1t
is true by the common law that IF one
steal goods in one county. and carry them
into another county, he may be indicted
-. IL a. u l..
steal goods in one State and carry them to
another State. he is not liable in the latter
State for larceny.
And for this distinction we are referred
To Buffers case, cited by Lord Coke. 18th
part Of his r. p. -, 9th vol.) and to Sd
Institutes. p. ll3, and other text writers
and cases. both English and American,
founded on and citing Buffers case.
Buffers case was this: Butler and 9TH
ers robbed some of Her Maiesty's subjects
in the 2Sth year OF the reign of Queen
Elizabeth. off the coast OF Suffolk. upon
the high sea. and brought the goods INTO
Norfolk. where they were apprchended
with the goods, and brought before Lord
Coke, who was then justice of the peace
Of that county. lie SAYS. they confessed
a cruel and barharous piracy, and that the
ENAN lllfN Alltll lltiiA viii AlltlAA Nflf llil
Of the goods they had robbed from the
Queens subjects on the high sea. | was
OF the opinion. saws he, that in that case
it could not be felony punishable by the
common law. because the original act
the taking Of them-was not offence
whereof the common law taketh knowl-
edge and by consequence the bringing
them into a county could not make the
same felony punishable by our law, and il
is not like where one stealeth goods in
one county and brings them into another
| then he NAV be indicted of felony in any
Of the counties, because that the original
was felony whereof the common law ia.
keith knowledge; and yet, notwithstand-
| ing committed them to Jail until the
/ coming of the justices of assizes-and
at the next assizes the opinion Of Way C.
| j., and Pertain j.. was, that forasmuch
/ as the common law doth not take notice
Of the original offence, the bringing Of
| the goods stolen upon the sea into a coun.
! ty, did not make the same punishable al
the ooEamon lie sslslss -aAaSsl-thissia
| effect, agrees with Lacey's case, cited in
I'd Coke's r. p. %, in Bingham case.
This report Of Buffers case was made
| by Lord Coke when he was G. j., on the
| question Of Admiralty Jurisdiction, ari
| sing i'm Hawkins case, 18th Coke, p. 81
| from which the above report is taken
| The point there presented was: IF a man
| committed piracy on the sea, and another
/ knowing thereof. receiveth and comfort
/ eth the delft within the body of the coun
| ty," whether under the Stat 2Sth II. :
| c. l6. he is indictable as a receiver and
/ abettor, inasmuch as the offence of the ac
/ cessory hath its beginning in the body o.
the county.
! And it was resolved by them that sucL
! receiver and abettor, by the common law
could not be indicted and convicted, be
cause, that the common law cannot take
! cognizance of the original offence, because
that is done out Of the jurisdiction of the
common law, and, by consequence, when
the common law cannot punish the prin
cipal, the same shall not punish any one
as accessory to such principal, and there
fore Coke, G. j. reported to them a case
which was in Sutiolk,-Butler and 9th
ers, as stated above.
Considered with reference to the uues
ton before the Court, whether an aces
sorry to an offence committed aJroal
against another jurisdiction. and not cog
nizable by the common law of England
could be indicted and punished as sucl
accessory ia England or whether an Of
fence committed against the laws of one
jurisdiction, could be punished in anoth
er jurisdiction, having different laws
Buffers case could only be in point t,
show that piracy and r05Jery on the higl
sea could not be punished in county il
England, where it never happened.
The question here presented was never
discussed, considered or thought, so fai
as we can learn from any report of But
ler's case extant. And to show conclu
~ively that this was the opinion of Lore
Coke, and its extent-after stating thai
Butler and his coniederates were commit
ted to Sir Robert Southwell. Vice Admi
raj Of said counties, he adds: "and this il
effect agrsss ,rih Laccy'S case, which see il
my Reports cited in Bingham's ease in >,
Repts., %, sc. Upon referring 10 tina
case il Is as follows: Lacey struck Pea
cock and gave him a mortal wound, upol
the sea. Of which Peacock died at Scarbor
rough, in the county of York, and Lace,
was discharged of IL. For those of tn
county Of York could not inquire Of hi
death. without inquiry of the stroke: an,
Of the blow they would not inquire, be
cause it was not given 'oiHDl o1,y county
Il is obvious therefore. both from the rnr
pose for which Lord Coke cited Butler
case, as well as the direct statement that j
agrees with Laceys, that the point her
presented was never considered in But
ler's case.
And that such is Lord IIale's under
standing Of Buffers case, see 81 Hale. 7
Is and 1913.
And in 81 Inst. y. ll3, Lord Coke il
treating Of the subject of piracy dc. con-
I a a a IL. 4
show that such offences, committed out o
the jurisdiction of any county in Eng
land, could not be there punished by tn
Courts of common law.
II will be seen. therefore, that Butler
case was not designed to create an crccJ
ton, but falls within a rule as old as TIA
common law itself. That an offence. T.
be indictable, must have been complete
ly committed in the county, and must b
so charged in the indictment, and prove,
to the satisfaction of the jury.
But again: 1t is principle universal
ly admitted, and so Lord Coke states tn
rule in Buffers case, as cited, that wher
one stealeth goods in one county, an,
brings them into another then no ma
be indicted for felony in any of tn
counties, because" says Lord Coke, "tha
the original act was felony, whereof tn
common law taketh knowledge
While the principle, thus stated, ha
been universally sanctioned, the reasol
assigned by Lord Coke is almost as uni
versally admittetl; and one given, no
only much more satisfactory as to tn
foundation Of this rule. but destructive q
the exception sought TO be engratted ol
it by the construction placed upon But
ler's case.
There never was time in the histor
of the common law, when IL did tax
knowledge in one county, of an .'origina
act" of felony in another county, an
more than it now takes RotieesOf an.
crime IN one State or county, committe,
in another. So Jealous were our ance:
tors of the preservation at this principle
that the ueIiue was always regarded as mat
ter of substance, and therefore at con
mon law, when the offence was con
menced in one county, and consqmmate
In another, the venue could not be laid.i
either, because no offence was committe,
In either.-l Arch. Cr.sp. GA, note; Hal