The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-05-22

transaction as the first, an acquittal on the
first trial will be bar to second convic-
ton, although the offences are called by
different name and the courts of Georgia,
Ohio, Connecticut, Louisiana, and North
Carolina have held that verdict of guilty
in one prosecution would be bar to the
second conviction for the same transaction,
although the indictments might specify
different grades of crimes. In New Jersey,
North Carolina and South Carolina, 1t is
held that where one 10 convicted of arson
for burning building, even where arson is
not a capital offense by statute, such con-
viction is bar TO an indictment of the
same person for the murder of one who
was burned in the house for the burning
of which he was convicted of arson. And
in New York it is held that an acquittal
for robbery is bar to an indictment for
larceny for stealing the same goods.
These cases ought to settle the question,
but the courts of New Hampshire have,
also, passed upon it. The supreme court
of that state decided-and the same doc
thine is held in Mississippi and Missouri
that if upon any state of evidence, an &C
cused person would have been convicted
of that offenSe upon the first trial, the sec
ond indictment cannot be maintained. That
is 10 cay, if the evidence produced against
Buzzell on the second trial would be suf1l-
cient, if produced on the fret trial, to have
convicted him, then the second indictment
cannot be maintained. 1t is, also, held in
New Hampshire, as we'll as everywhere
else, that upon an indictment for murder, Q
person can be convicted as principal or &C
cessory, or for manslaughter-on the prin
ciple that the greater crime includes the
lees-and that general acquittal on an in
dictment for murder, is an acquittal no
only of the crime with which he is specific
ally charged, but of all the lesser grades o
crime which are included in the principa
charge.
Moreover, ever since the White murde
at Salem, Massachusetts,, 1t has been wei
settled in this country, that one present
aiding, abettng, assisting or directing in
murder, is guilty as the principal murdere
and may be tried, convicted and punishe
as such. And this is precisely the cas-
of Buzzell as disclosed by the confession o
Cook. By every principle of America
law, he is as much the principal murderer
as if his hand, not Cooks, fired the fats
shot; and indicting him as an accessor
cannot change the crime, his respons
bility therefor or the punishment
Indeed, the laws of New HampshiI
expressly declare that any person VIII
shall aid in, counsel, hire or procure tn
commission of any offense shall be punisl
ed in the same manner as the principal o.
fender. Buzzel was placed on trial ft
the murder of the Hanson woman, and b
life was put in jeopardy therefor, was
, notr He was acquitted, and now the a
torney general proposes to put him on tr
as an accessory for the same murder-an
the punishment therefor, if convicted,
death-will he not, then, be placed in ie'
@ much in the way of Furnishing this particl
q lar murderer for his crime, as the governc
of Vermont stands in the way of metin
, out full punishment to any class of offent
, ers in this state. Between governors, cour
| and juries, New England is becomin
paradise for criminals.