The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1875-11-10
Col. Rion for aofonce, thus

of England that no. man shall be
tried twice for tho same offence mol
punished twice for the same offence
and that no quibble of the Crowns
Counsel should subvert tho law
This law has spread into all English
speaking countries. In this state il
order to prevent fraud &C., on the
part of those who hold offices o1
trust, laws are passed to prevent the
doreliction of duty, but cnch law it
regulated according to the status Of
the caso. The object of the several
laws concerning the County Treasu
ry is not that the state shall have all
the processes but it must olect the
method of procedure.
1t is the act of prudence to elect
that procedure which is most gener.
al and comprehensive in its nature
AS i'll the case of homicide, the state
should first try for murder, then 70,
manslanghtcr, then for ass ,ult and
battery with intent to kill sc. 1t is
not generally the practice to proceed
in several different ways but when
such n proceeding is contemplated,
the Indictment should have been
brought OH the most comprehensive
charge at first and not, as in the
present case upon u minor charge
and thon upon n greater. For if
the ofl'onoe chargol in the second
Indictment inclu led the otfoncc
charged in the first, or if facts
necessary to prove tho second in.
dictment will prove or tend .o'prove
the first Indictment, then conviction
OIL the first indictment will b. tho
second indictment. Tho law will
not allow its officers to begin with
the smaller indictment first ani then
to proceed with grave:' charges.
Coun e then proceeded to show
That the same charge WIS repeated
substantially in both in lictm ,n IS,
and continued Does not the
charge that Smith cm3ezzlel the
money embrace also tho charge that
he failed to turn it ovc", and the State
III prevented now from seeking why
the money was not forwarded 2 1t
il not neccssarytthat Ito same offence
Shall be charged but only that it
should be the same act which forms
the basis of both offences.
He then cited 1 Wharton 5G5, to the
effect that when two offences arise
from the same act, sentence in one
prevents trial for the other.
But when the act cnn be divided
into two branches, as when one steals
two different articles ut the same
time, he can be tried for both Of
fonces, unless the tho articles belong
to the same person.
An important qualification is that
whom one offence is necessary inere-
dient or accompaniment of tho other,
they cannot both be proceeded on.
Authorities from Several States were
cited in support OF this position
VIII 1T IL says when the evidence no.
ccssary to support the second in
dictmont would have produced con-
viction Oh the first, then the plea OF
a"tretois convict is generally good
but not otherwise"
Had the second Indictment been
tied first, then the other might also
have been tried, but othel wise. Now
the evidence required to provo ON,
bazzlcment would more than prove
the offence of not turning ovel
money, and by tho authorities above
cited, the second Indictment cannot
be tried.
He then cited 18 Wallacc's U. S
Reports, page 1GS, &C pu'te Lang
to the OBJECT that no man can bs twice
lawfully punished for tho same Of
fence; and though such questions
have bocn raised when different
offences are tried in different courts
yet the principle is certain whore tht
samo cou.t tries for offences
founded on tho samc fact.
He also cited authorities from
Kentucky in support of the PROPOSE
tion. Also from Illinois. ,
Bishop oD criminal law also citct
to show thpt misdemeanorg as we'll III
felonies should be included in til,
above ruling.
Authorities of South Carolin,
were citod to show TINT this obsain
in South Carolina. In l Rich. 22O
State VS.. Richor, the Attorney G. cn
eral said if the evidence in the secont
case would have convicted on tn
first, then the rule Of autrefois con