The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-01-22
La w INTELLIGENCE.
CRIMINAL C0URT-JUDGE BOND.

CRIMINAL COURT-JUDGE BOND.
Hon. Henry May, States Attorney.-The
Courtroom was densey crowded yesterday morn
ing by all classes of citizens, brought there to
hear the opinion of Judge Bond upon the indct-
ment recently tried before his Honor against Viii
ton Whitney, charging him with making false
report to the House of Delegates.-After the
opening of the Court at 10 O'clock the Grand Jury
were called and three of the members sum-
moned to supply vacancies, were Two
Grand Jurors being yet wanted to complete the
legal number, the Court directed the Sheriff to
summon accordingly. The Court then remarked
to the jurors that it was its duty to call their at
tenien to sections "a, rs and &c of the Code in re-
lation to the publication and circulation of in
cendiary documents within the State. The
Judge also said, that large number of
witnesses would be no doubt before the Grand jury
to testify, and he would remind them that it was
necessary to weigh and examine such testimony as
was ELECTED before them with great care and con-
slderation. Not to present any one without the
idence before them was such, as in their opinion,
would justify verdict against the accused party,
looking to the facts if they sitting upon the
petit jury. 1t was useless to send indictments
against persons before the Court-where there was
always large amount of business-merely for the
sake of requiring such persons to defend themselves
They would also see the propriety of endorsing
upon the back of the indictments the names of the
material witnesses for the State, BY which course
the States officer could proceed knowingly and
Understandings to trial. There had been large
numbers of indictments sent to the Court with
out the names of any witnesses to sustain the
diieRdtIous OF the Charge. In SucD cases witnesses
had to be hunted up by the States Attorney, and
after they were brought into Court it appeared
that they knew nothing of the case, and had never
been before the Grand Jury. If the body wanted
any information about the law, they could consult
with the Court or the acting States Attorney
The Grand Jury then retired, and after the call of
the petit jury, Judge Bond said that he was ready
to render Judgment upon the indictment against
Mr.. Whitney, tried last week before him. The
Judge then read his opinion as follows:
State. CRIMINAL CoURT OF BALTIMORE
as CITY
This is prosecution against the States Attorney for
Baltimore city under indictment charging wilfu
neglect of duty by him in such Office in having made
FALSE decetfu and fraudulent report
to order of the House of Delegates Maryland passed
on the 18th of February, 1860
The party indicted avang himself of the provisions of
the Code has chosen to traverse the allegations before
Court instead of submitting them the Judgment of
sponsbilty resting since the has thus
submitted have given the arguments of counsel and
the authorizes cited at Bar the most careful and de-
lberate consideration.
1t is necessary that all collateral issues misconcep
ons of the purport of this indictment should removed
proper understanding OF the facts accurate
Judgment upon them can be had.
This indictment does not charge any embezzement of
public money.
The is trial for refusing or neglectng
to return the excess of his fees TO the proper public of
fcer.
Whether not the raverser kept his accounts in book
as required by the Constitution of the State is not mat
ter of inquiry in this
The question of fact be decided by the Court here
is was the report made to the House of Delegates Feb
18th, 1860 and set forth in the Indictment false de-
ceitful and fraudulent report2" as charged
The defence, however, has suggested questions
law, which If their view be correct. decisive of the
and render inquiry the facts unnecessary
These questions are, first: Was the offence if any com
med within the jurisdiction this Court and second
Does the making report return by the States At
toney if it should be to be false fraudulent and
decetful order of the House Delegates
constitute in law the offence charged in the Indictment
to wit "a wilful neglect of duty within the meaning
of article w. section /, Of the Constitution of the
/ other
such report in to such order, the making
false and fraudulent answer thereto wfu neglect of
official duty" required by law, of the States At
torney?
And these two questions of law must be disposed Of
before any inquiry be had to the facts involved in
the case.
First them to the question of jurisdiction By the
Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court
of Baltimore is limited to offences committed within the
city of Baltimore.
The proof in this case shows that the report or return
referred to in the indictment made in Anne Arundel
county at the city of Annapolis, to the House OF Dele
gates there sitting. Until it there delivered to the
subject to any change or to be withheld by him. it
was not made" until delivered. IT, therefore, it was
false fraudulent and the making such report be
offence charged it was one committed beyond the
jurisdiction of this Court and not cognzabe here The
case cited at bar Queen u.s. Wilmer) 81 E. c. L., Rep
$40 is decisive upon this point In that man who
had committed an act of bankruptcy in Worcestershire
was summoned to appear in another county War
indicted in Worcestershire The Court held that the
failure to appear in warwickshre offence there
ed the prosecution So in this case it must be held that
the failure to make any report or the making false
one was an offence f any, committed in Anne Arundel
county cognizabe there not here The indictment in this
sucently sets out the venue, and is not therefore
SUBJECT to demurrer has been twice decided by the
SUR OF Appeals in MI Maryland Rep Wedge u.s.
and Estate Reed) but the proof shows the Of
inrisd, any to have been committed within another
Conf =; 1t would therefore, be the duty Of this
emit proper to remand the party to the Cir
opinion of Anne Arundel county for trial. it, in the
inc false ea court the act charged to wit the max
of the House of 6aauen return in the order
a. a;d IN peiegates wi,fuI neglect of
uu ~, 40 20 a ~ eie Indictment
Du tne lo the defence have conten fed that tbe
MAKING Oh sucn report in answer m sncb on ord 49,
tbresors n the legal onesto charged and we come,
fact be that the report false 'he
The indictment, it is to be obseryed ~ ZEN.
demeanor in Office at common law and does o Nv. MS
as for such offence. '' 'oheiuue
1t is aimed at and expresses ga wilful neglec, &c
required by the Constitution and laws Of the Sly
and therefore properly concludes "against the prov
of the Constitution Of the State &C.,
We must therefore look to that instrument to find what
that duty is, 'wiful neglect of which constitutes the
offence charged and for which, penalty is also presented
BY the same instrument.
And II must be remembered that as penal statute (as