The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-01-23
NEW TRIAL FOR WREN.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
YESTERDAY.
JUDGM OF THE HUsTINGs COURT
- -. REVERSED.

a large number Of citizens assembled In
the room of the Supreme Court OF Appeals
yesterday to hear the decision of that tri-
bunal in the case Of John Wren Uersus The
Commonwealth.
Judge Christian rendered the opinion, as
follows:
This is writ of error to a judgment of
the Hastings Court of the city Of Richmond.
The plaintiff in error was tried and convict
ed as accessory after the fact to one John
Dull, who had been convicted in the same
court Of felony. The indictment in this
case, after setting out the felony committed
by John Dull, charged that John Wren, of
said city, well knowing the said John Dull
to have committed the said felony in form
aforesaid-to Wit, since the said felony was
committed in the year aforesaid in The city
aforesaid the said John Dull did then and there
unlawfully receiue, har6or, and maintain,
against the peace and dignity OF the Com
monweaith of Virginia.
After the evidence was closed and the case
submitted to the jury, and after some time
passed in deliberatien, they returned into
court and propounded to the Court writ.
ten inquiry in the following words:
care we considering the question against
John Wren, or John Wren detective Off
Ger; if detective official, does the fact that
| he allowed Dull, after the compromise, to go
unarresteu make him accessory after the
factf"
To this inquiry the Court responded:
elf you believe from the evidence that at
the time Of the transactions detailed in the
evidence John Wren was detective officer
and police-constable of the city of Rich
| mond it is proper for you to consider and
{hct ;,,i y,,;lt or
innocence, it being his right and duty ss
| such officer to arrest any feIon upon kuowl.
edge of his felony. If you believe from the
evidence that the prisoner, polce.consta-
| BILE and detective, with notice that John Dull
bad committed felony, permitted him to
go from his presence after the alleged COM
promise without arresting him, intending to
allow him to go free 81 arrest it is material
! fact to be considered by the jury in connec-
ton with the other conduct of the accused
in determining upon the guilt or innocence
| Of the prisoner"
The Court is Of opinion that these instruc-
tions in the form in which they were given
were calculated to misead the jury, and
were. therefore, erroneous. They were given,
as will be observed, in response to an inquiry
made by the jury upon single point =" Are
we considering the question against John
Wren, or John Wren detective officer. II
detective official, does The fact that he al
| lowed Dull, after the compromise, to 60 I'M
arrested make him accessory after the fact?
1t is apparent that the jury were seeking
at the hands of the Court definition of
| what IN law constitutes an accessory after the
| fact; and The particular point of the inquiry
| to which the Court was called upon to re-
spond was: if they were TO consider the case
| against John Wren as detective officer, and
being "detectre official" does the fact that
| he failed to arrest Dull make him accessory
after the fact?
This inquiry plainly ought to have been
answered in the negative.
The question propounded by the jury was
| not whether the fact that the accused was q
detective officer and police-constable of the
city of Richmond was fact which they
| ought to consider and weigh in determining
bis guilt or innocence, nor whether, being a
| detective officer, and having notice that Dull
had committed felony, the accused permit.
| ted him to go from his presence without ar
resting him, was material fact to be consider.
ed by the jury in connection with the other
conduct the accused in determining his guilt
or innocence. II the inquiry had been di-
| rected to these poirf& the response of the
court would have been entirely unobjec.
tionabe. But the single inquiry pro
pounded by the jury was, in effect, "Does
| the fact that the accused, who is q detec.
tive officer, failed to arrest Dull make
him accessory after the fact to the
felony committed by Duil?" This was the
single and pointed inquiry, and to this there
| ought to have been negative response. The
jury ought 10 have been told by the Court, in
| response to their inquiry, that the fact that
| the accused was detective officer, and al
| lowed Dull to 90 unarrested, did not of itself
| make him an accessory after the fact to the
| felony committed by Dull. If such declara.
| ton had prefaced the instructions given they
would have been In all respects proper and
| unobjectionable but the failure to give
such negative response to the single inquiry
of the jury, and giving the instructions with
| out such direct response to their question,
was calculated TO mislead them.
Now, it cannot be questioned that mere
| failure to make arrest of a felon taken by
| itself does not in law constitute the party an
| accessory after the fact.
Accessories after the fact, by the common
| law, are those who, kao,clnga felony to have
| been committed by another, receive, release,
comfort. or assist the felon. l Hale p. c., sec.
tion 61S; Whar. Am. c. L., section LAG; l
Bishop G.. L., sections G33, 6S4. The true
| test, says Bishop, for determining whether
one is accessory after the fact is to consider
whether what he did was done by way OF
personal help to his principal with the view
of enabling the principal to elude punish
| ment-the kind of help rendered appearing
| to be unimportant. Thus he is an accessory
who, With requisite knowledge and intent,
| furnishes the principal felon with means OF
escape, money or yictuals to support him, a
house or other shelter to conceal him, or
offer force or violence to rescue or protect
him. So likewise to convey instruments to a
felon to enable him to break Jail, or to bribe
the jailor TO let him escape, make man ac-
cessory to the felony. h., section ga.
But when the thing done amounts to no
more than the componnding of the felony, or
u msprision Of ii, the doer will not be an ac-
ceSsory. Thus, a person will not be such
VINO merely neglects to make known to the
authorities that felony has been committed,
or iorbears to arrest the felon, or agfees not
to prosecute him. H., section 635.
"Any assistance" says Wharton, "given
to one known 10 be felon, in order to hin.
der his apprehensioH. trial, or punishment,
is sufficient 10 make man An accessory after
the fact" The author then gives various
illustrations similar to those given above, and
adds: "Merely suffering the felon to escape,
however, will not charge the party SO doing,
such amounting to mere OMISSION" l
Wharton, section 146, and cases there cited.
We do not believe that the able and eth-
cient Judge of the austiDgs Court of Rich
mond intended by his instructions to con-
troyert or deny these acknowledged and we'll.
settled general principles. But in the hurry