National Republican., 1881-09-16
population Of the National Capital. 10000
Guiteau and the Courts.

tried in this District if the President
should die beyond its jurisdiction, and
the further question whether he could be
tried in New Jersey if the President
should die in that State, have been
mooted in some of the papers. Sundry
decisions at common law, as well rs under
the statutes of some of the States, have
been cited TO show that when a wound
is inflicted in one jurisdiction and death
ensues therefrom in another jurisdiction
the crime of murder has not been com
mitted in either place A legal friend
has placed us under obligations for the fol-
lowing references to authorities on this
subject. 1t is laid down in Chitty's
"Criminal Law" HILLS as follows:
The venue was always regarded as n matter of
substance, and therefore at common lac, where the
ofIcnsc was commenced in one county and con.
summatCd ia another the venue could be laid in
ncdha, aud the defendant went altogether an.
punished.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia, in the
case of The Commonwealth rs. Linton, were
unanimously of the opinion that the
prisoner could not be tried and convicted
of the murder charged in the indictment,
alleging the mortal stroke to have been
given in n county of Virginia and the
death of the person stricken to have
taken place in county of Ohio. e Va.
Cases, 205)
In Mississippi the High Court of Errors
and Appeals, in the case of Soughton rs.
the STATE, where it appeared that the death
wound was inflicted in one county, in
which the prisoner was indicted, while
the death occurred in another, quashed
the indictment on the ground that the
statute of the State provided for indict-
ment in the county where the death oc-
Cured.
In the opinion the court referred to the
common law rs follows;
The better opinion seems to have been that by
The common lac when the blow was given in one
county and the death happened in another, the
offender was not triablc in either. (l3 SIN. d NJ,
2j5).
Chief-Justice Taylor, of North Carolina,
in OweI'S case II Dev., l39), said: .
Though the rule was plain of common ia,r that
murder, in common with other oileuses, must be
inquired into In the county wherein 1t was COM
mittcd, yet IL was doubted whether If person
ceiyed stroke in one county and died in another
the oncnse was completed in either.
The common law has not, we be-
lieve, been superseded by any statute
operative in this District, and it is
plain that no person can be lawfully
tried and convicted here for muir
der unless the victim of his deadly
blow dies within the District jurisdiction
a case in point is that of the United
States VS.. Bladen, tried before the old
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia,
the predecessor of the present Supreme
Court of the District and reported in /
Cranch, Circuit Court Reports, 5iS. In
this case it appears that the mortal wound
was inflicted by the defendant in .lleran-
drid (thcR a part Of Me DiStrict) and that
the injured party died from the effects of
it in ST. Mary's County, Maryland. The
court held that the oHcnse of murder
not eamplotod within its jurisdiction, and
that it could only try the defendant for
the assault and battery perpetrated in the
District
In most of the States the failure of
justice in this class of cases is prevented
by statutory enactment. baS the common
law as laid down inthe above decisions
is doubtless the law ofthis District to-day.
--- II being plain that in the event of
the Presidents death elsewhere the
courts of the District would be un-
able to entertain an indictment for
murder, il becomes a mat er of inter-
est to know what the powers of the
courts of New Jersey would be in the
premises should death take place there.
Section 7S Of the Revision of the Statutes
of New Jersey, published by authority
of the Legislature Of that State in 1878,
reads in part rs follows:
Where any person shall be fcloniousy stricken
or poisoned upon the sea- or at any place out Of The
Jurisdiction QfNiS STATE and shall die of the same
stroke or poisoning within the Jurisdiction of this
State; or where any person shall be felonouSy
stricken or poisoned within the jurisdiction of this
State, and shall die Of such stroke or poisoning
upon the sea or at any place out of the Jurisdiction
OF this State, in either of the said an indct.
ment thereof found by jurors Of the county within
the jurisdiction Of this State in which such DEATH
stroke or poisoning shall happen, respectively as
aforesaid, whether 1t shall be found before any
coroner upon view Of such dead body, or before
the justices Of the peace or other justices COM
msSlonors who shall have authority to inquire of
murders, shall be as good and cncctual in the law,
as well against the principal or principals in any
such murder against the accessory or accessories
thereto rs II such ielOnOus stroke, and death
thereby ensuing, or poisoning aud death thereby
ensuing, and the oiIcnse OF such accessory or ac-
cessores, had happened in the same county where
such indictment shall be found
This section is idential with section
f an act Of the Legislature of that State
entitled "An act concerning the trial of
murder in cases where the stroke and
death happen in different counties, and
in cases where either the stroke or death
only happens within this State" which
was passed March 7, 1897, and which may
be found in Nixon's Digest of the Laws
of New Jersey" published in 1865
The Supreme Court Of New Jersey has
had this statute under consideration in
two cases-that of The State as. Carter,
above mentioned, and that of Hunter rs.
the State, reported in II Vroom 405, and
in each the right Of the State to provide
for the punishment of crime where the
death or the blow only happened in the
State has been discussed. The court
seems TO have been on both sides Of the gtes-
ti0n.
The case Of The State Us. Carter was de-
termined at the February term in 1859
The indictment charged that the defend,
ant on the Goth Of December, 1858, in the
city of New York, gave one Brushingham
i i I