The Evening critic., 1881-09-26

Columbia, and the death happened in Mary
land, the court of the District has not juris-
diction Of the offense.
1t was per curidnt decision, the court
simply saying its opinion was that, as the
death happened in st. Mary's County, Md,
District, the Judgment must be for the
prisoner, relying on Heydon's case, Coke,
Al; Horne VS.. Ogle, A Coke, AZ; Inst, 3ls
8 Inst, 40, 40, 70.
This is the only decision on this point
made by court of the United States. Not
being ovcrrulcd it is authority In the pres
cnt case 1t may not be conclusive, how
ever, for by the Both section of the act of
March 9, 1867, Congress has provided that,
,rhen any oGcnse shall be begun IN one judicial
district aud completed IN another, ercry such
ofense shall be deemed 10 hare been committed
IN either, and may be dealt rith tried, deter.
mined aud punished IN either, IN the same man
ner as ifH had been actually and whoNy COM
miited therein.
There Is no doubt but that the District of
Columbia and New Jersey constitute judi
cial districts ascertaincd by law as provided
in the Constitution of the United States.
The present case was, therefore, clearly
provided for under this act. But the law
was not codifed in sec. 73l, Revised Stat
utcs, rs it originally passed.
The codifcrs, for some reason which docs
not appear, changed somewhat the phrase
ology of the act referred to- They use the
words judicial circuit " instead of "judi-
cial district !" so that the section, as codi-
fed, reads: when any offensc is begun in
one judicial circuit and completed in another
1t shall be deemed to have been committed
in either, and be tried, determined and
punished in either district"
This chanoo throws douht unnn fha mini
whether the Supreme Court of this District
under this section would have jurisdiction
of tho oflensc in question, because the Dis
trict of Columbia may not be held to be u
judicial circuit But this doubt may be
somewhat lessened when it Is observed that
sec. 731, Revised Statutes, provides that
such offense may be "dealt with, inquired
of, tried, determined and punished in either
district" To mako the section consistent it
would seem that the words circuit and dis
trict should be construed as meaning the
same thing. Should there be doubt as to
the correct Interpretation the court would
refer to the original act, 10 Court OF Claims,
81.
By section $50, Rev. Stats, ct seq, the
United States are divided into judicial dis
riots, some of the districts being compo scd
of entire States and others of part of a
State. By sec. 60i, the judicial districts arc
grouped rs judicial circuits.
The District of Columbia is not mentioned
| in these sections as II district or rs compos-
ing one of the circuits.
The act of February %, 1901, concerning
the District of Columbia, however, provided
that there shall be court in said district
to be called n Circuit Court of the District
of Columbia, having all the power vested
. in the Circuit Courts of the United States.
l VI. =. n. .sfA
when the act of March 3, 1868, reorganizing
the court in the District of Columbia, en-.
acted that there shall be Supreme Court in
the District pc IS ,ssing the same power and
exercising the same jurisdiction now pos
sessed and exercised by the Circuit Court
This act is codified in sec. $50 and sections
following Of the Rev. Stats. relating to tho
District of Columbia.
The Supreme Court of this District
therefore. under this statute, has all thu
power of Circuit Court, among which /
jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses cog
nizablc under the authority of the U. s.
except where it may be otherwise provided
by law. See also Sec 90 of the Revised
Statutes of the District of Columbia maxim,
the laws of the United States applicable tt
this District.
1t would seem, therefore, under the stat
ute quoted, though there is no judicial dc
cision on the subject, that while some
doubt, as before stated, Is thrown on tn,
question by the language of Sec. 731, ye
that it would not be violent construction
to hold that the District may be considered
q judicial circuit for the purpose of the act
and that, therefore, the defendant may BIZ
held and punished in the District of Colum
bia But if the statute fails to give tn,
court jurisdiction, it will be seen that thu
law is by no means settled as to what con
stitutes murder. While the court in Blad
EMS case, before cited, held that to cOnsti
tute murder in Alexandria (then in tn
District of Columbia), both the stroke an,
death should occur there, the case from tn
report does not seem to have been argu c.
by either side. The case may not, there
fore, have received the consideration which
the Importance of the present one demands
1t is true the opinion of the court was sui
ficient for that particular case, yet in viey
of the grave doubts expressed by the com
mon-law writers it should not be REGARDED
as conclusive on the question as to wha
constitutes the crime Of murder. TIL
, opinion that the fatal blow constituted til
crime seems quite as authOritive as tn
contrary one.
And as said by the Supreme Court i
Tennessee, in Riley's case, this view is NOR
IN accordance Wltn common opinion.
In confirmation also of this may be cite
a case decided in England in 1881, in whic
it was held that giving the blow whic
caused the death constituted the felony, an
that the languishing is not any part of tn
} oflense; that, therefore, an indictment whic
charged that the prisoner gave the decease
! mortal blow in the County of Middlcse,
} and that he languished and died in tn
} County of Kent was good. REX VS.. Han
grave, G. and p, 170.)
Coles case, Plowden 40l, is also to tn
| same point. Cole was indicted for TIL
, murder of Elizabeth Pembroke, who wa
r wounded ON the 18th of February and die
on the 18th of June following. Cole pleade
l an intermediate pardon of all felonies.
Q was argued on the part of the Crown tina
his act did not become felony until TIL
death, and therefore was not one Of tn
felonies pardoned But the justices agree
I that the pardon discharged the prisont
4 because the wound given by him was tn
, cause of the felony, the giving of whic
: wound was an oflensc and misdemeanC
4 against the Queen, and that being pardonet
Q all the consequences that followed froi
; said offcnse were also pardoned thereby"
o -----e--
Now RenIy.