The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-29

JuStceS
GENTLEMEN Allow me most respectfully (if not
obediently) to say that in the Clipper of this
morning proceeding of your most honorable and
enlightened Court, commonly called procedendo,
commanding me, as Judge of the Criminal Court OF
Baltimore, to try again William G. Ford who was
tried at the last term, found guilty by the jury of
murder in the first degree for the homicide of
Thomas II. Burnham, and sentenced by me to be
hanged until he was dead, such day as should be
appointed by the Governor.
In the procedendo mandate aforesaid YOU state
as follows:
''The said Court of Appeals having duly examined
the record and proceedings aforesaid, in the prem
lses on the first Monday of December, last did
verse the judgment and sentence by the said Crimi
nal Court there being manifest error in the rendi-
ton OF the judgment and sentence. Whereupon
the Court of Appeals pursuant to the spirit, true
Intent and meaning of the Acts of Assembly in such
case made and provided, and upon the general
principles OF the common law and the power and
authority of the Court of Appeals, did order and
drecta transcript of the record and proceedings to
De remitted to the Criminal Court of Baltimore" &c
Next comes the command of the Court of Ap-
peals to me to try the again, in these words:
"Theretore you are hereby commanded that such
proceedings be had, in such action, which, accord
ing to right and justice and the laws of the State
and agreeably to the Judgment of the Court of APP
peals, ought to be had in the same manner as if no
trial had taken place." &c.
Now, Judges of the Court of Appeals, allow me
to suggest, that if you had pointed out to me any
Act OF Assembly empowering you to issue writ of
error in criminal case would have obeyed the
Act of the Legislature with alacrity. You will ex-
cuse me for denying the existence of any such act
of this State
| have searched for such acts and cannot find
them-also inquired of experienced lawyers, who
tell me there are no such acts If YOU, learned
Judges, will refer me to the acts OF Assembly
Will obey your order to try Ford over again. You
say there such aets. OF You ought to
show them; otherwise I am not bound to obey
them.
am told there are acts of Assembly in New
York and other States providing wrts of error in
criminal cases, but there no such acts in Mary
land that | can find, or you can show. If there
were any such acts, why mention the general prin-
clples of the common law and the innate power
and authority of your Court?
What error you say was manifest in the judgment
and sentence of the Criminal Court | cannot dis
cern. Allow me to assure you, lin order to tran
quilize your nerves and satisfy your religious iniu
ences,) that Ford had as fair a trial as any man
ever tried in this State or in the world. The jury
were men of the highest character for intelligence,
humanity and firmness, without any religious or
political bias against the prisoner They heard,
understood, and weighed all the testimony and the
ingenious detences of his counsel, and found him
guilty of murder in the first degree and refused
him new trial. The Constitution emphatically
declares that the jury judges of the law and
facts in criminal cases. You, Judges, who heard
nothing, and, of course, can know nothing of the
evidence merits of the case pronounce that there
Court on this verdict after full hearing of all the
testimony.
The record sent to you, and certified as it was,
would have been received as evidence of the truth
and justice, and the legality of the judgment and
sentence in any other court in Christendom, and
could not be contradicted by affidavits of casual
bystanders, much less set aside.
1t is a fundamental principle of law that every
court must Judge of its jurisdiction. This court
derives all its authority and jurisdiction from the
Constitution and laws of the State, and it cannot
consent to accept or exercise any powers bestowed
on it by the Court of Appeals, or try cases more
than once unless when for sufficient reasons it grants
trial for defects in testimony or unfair pro-
ceedings, all of which the court that tries the
case can hear and rightly understand, and which
your court has no opportunity of hearing or know
ing anything.
If any court or officer obeys an unauthorized
command, they do so at their peril The Sheriff
who executed King Charles by the order of the
Commons was tried after the restoration and put
to death for so doing, because it was held by the
court that the Commons had authority to pass
sentence OF death the King, and the Sheriff.
therefore, ought to have refused obedience to their
writ, &c. This law may be found in the school
books.
1t is also an immutable and constitutional prin
clple OF law that no man shall be tried twice for
the same offence. Suppose then should try Ford
again upon your command and he should be found
guilty by the jury, and executed by my Judgment
and sentence, would [ not be guilty of murder, if
you should turn out to have no authority for com
mandlng me to try him second time? / am
afraid to incur so great risk Besides, if | try
nm over again you might. with equal consistency,
set my second Judgment aside, and so on totes quo
ties. Then the case would be like Mahomet's cof.
nm, IN eternal suspense.
As am engaged every day in trying cases, YOU
gentlemen, will please the brevity of these
remarks | have not time to review your abstract
opinion in detail; and beg leave to assure you if
you will refer me to any Act of Assembly giving
you authority to set aside the verdict of jury at
the Judgment and sentence of the court in Crimi-
nal Court, | will obey your procedendo. but not
without such law.
Let me beg, you, Judges, to consult the Cover
nor; perhaps he will hang him without another
trial, which certainly never will give him until
L see your authority by Act of Assembly. If Ford
escapes by the decision of your Honorable Court,
am glad of it. You will gain great credit, like
Caesar for his clemency, and your court become
more popular than ever.
With sentiments of the profoundest friendship
and regard for every learned member of your Court
of Appeals remain, HENRY STUMP,
Judge of the Criminal Court of Baltimore.
CoURT OF COMMON PLEAs.-Hon. VIM. L. Mar
shal, Judge. The following business was transact
ed yesterday:
Edward Cooper Us. George w. RUSSELL Appeal
from Owings. Judgment reversed and iudgme mt
for appellant for $3.50 and costs.
Mills Murray Us. Richard S. Hardesty. Appeal
from Ridgeley. Judgment reversed.
Reverdy johnson John Nugent. Appeal from
Marrow. Judgment reversed.
Henry Linker John White Appeal from
Owings. Judgment reversed.
CIRCUIT Court FOR BALTIMORE CITY.-No bust.
ness of Importance transacted yesterday.
SUPERIOR CoURT.-Hon. z. Collins Lee, Judge
The following business transacted yesterday:
Mann u.s. McConkey. Judgment for defendant
for return of property.
Matthews Us. Boyd. Settled by agreement of
counsel
Clark & Zell VIM. Gaehe. Judgment for
plaintiff
Ward Us. Baltimore Coal Company. Judgment
for plaintiff.
Loney and others Us. Bevans & Co. On trial.
Assignment for Monday, from 527 to $50 inclu-
sive.
TowsoNTowN, Jan. %, 1859.
BALTIMORE COUNTY CRCUIT COURT.-Hon. Judge
Price, presiding. Richard J. Cuttings, States At
torney, prosecuting. The following business was
transacted to-day:
Immediately upon opening the Court this morn
ing, the jury in the of Fred Schneider charg-
ed with stealing two bushels of from Mr.. JEFF
FANG ls,t sc