The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-09-15

COULD uE BE IffED RoHI NDeDEh shovh
rnz rRzsTDkET DIE At ELpERosI

rsp yRzs,DfsT DIE At kLpEROs?
from be Evenine starJ
The removal OF The Pfesident 70 Lone
Branch would seem, in the event OF q lAse'
ttrrminsfion of his fnjHries5to preclude -fse
possIbiiv2cn consictins hss ASSASSIN q
In legal aspect the ease presented would
no slmnIy that of a person who had received
a mortal woupd in the District OF Colum.
h,s. from the effects OF which his death nad
taken place elsewhere, and. under these CIR.
cumstspces. the courts Of the Dlstric'
would not have Jurisdiction OF the offence
ne 4 homicide, but would be confined 10 o
consideration OF the assault merely
Al common law, murder, In common
with other offences, must be inquired into
I'm the county wherein committed, ana IL was
,honobt i'm England that where the mortal
.troke had been given ia one county anu
the death had happened IN another, tha'
Inc offence was not coDsummste or com
pIete in either; that the iury OF the nrst
county could rot take notice OF the oealn
which took place in the secopu, ana t"a.
fbe iory In tue second could not inquire on
he wounding in the first. tlnailyi the
statute OF 2 and 3 Of Edw. o, was passeu oy
Parliament, which provided that In snch
cases .sthe trial shall be 10 the county
where the death happens
In this country the question mas peei
passed upon by the highest courts 10 SEVERN
OF the States. 10 Virginia, IN the case oi
the Commonwealth Us. Linton, the CouTtoi
AppeaIs were unanimously OF the opinion
that the defendant could not be lrleu ana
convicted OF the murder charged III lne III
dictmept, which alleged The mortal strOke 70
have been given IN o county IN Virginia ana
The death Of the person stricken OF a county
in the State Of OHIO. q Va. cases, 2co.) In
Nississinni. In the case Of SiOughtOn Us.
The State, where IL appeared thai Tue dean
wound was inflicted in one county, while
The death occurred In another, the High
Court az Errors and Appeals. In quashiDg
the indictment, used The iolowihg ian'
guage: "The better opinion seems 10 nave
been that, by the common law where tne
blow was given in one county and the deatn
happened In another the offender was not
,riahIe in either" Q3 SIN. and NJ, 25j.)
THE Supreme Court Of New Jersey, in the
case of the State Us. Carter % Dutch, 409),
held that an Indictment charging afelonious
assault in New York, and that the party In
iured came into and died from It's effects in
Now Jersey, alleged no crime agaiDsletne
StaIP. DC cDUCluuiuS pOiAiph -
ion OF the court IS as follows cit - sald
that II we do not take jurisdiction the de-
PENDANT Will 90 unpublished, inasmuch as
The party mi ured not dying In New 1orS,
be could not be guiliyo Of murder there. But
New York may provide by law Tor SUCH
cases, and il she does not 1T Is their iault
and not ours" etc, etc.
The question was also considered IN
| North Carolina in 0rrelPs case u Der,
1891, and in Tennessee 10 Riiey's case -
HumpL., 646), and in the year 1909 the OLD
Circuit Court Of the District Of Columbia,
| sitting in Alexandria which place was
then a part If the Dislrict-gaye Judgment
for the defendant in the ease OF the United
States Us. Baden. in which case the pTis'
oner had been indicted for manslaughter,
and iu'which il appeared that the mortal
blow was given in Alexandria and the death
bappened in st. Mary's county, IN the state
OF Maryland. The case is reported in vol.
/. at page 54S, of Craneh's Circuit Court
Reports, and although the defendant bad
been found guilty as Indicted, the court
held that under the circumstances the
offence was not complete within It's lurls-
| dlctIon. The prisoner was, however, held
TO answer an indictment for assault and
battery.
The common law as laid down in these
decisions is the law Of this District to-day.