Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-09-12
An Important Legal Question.

An important Legal question.
COULD GUITEAU BE TRIED FOR MURDER IF THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD DIE AT ELBERON?
The removal of the President to Long
Branch would seem, in the event of fatal
termination of his injuries. to preclude the
possibility of convicting his assassin of murder.
In legal aspect the case presented would be
simply that of person who had received a
mortal wound in the District of Columbia from
the effects of which his death had taken place
elsewhere. and under these circumstances the
courts Of the District would not have jurisdic-
tion of the offence as homicide but would be
confined to consideration of the assault
merely.
AT common law, MURDER in common with
other offences, must be inquired into, in the
county wherein committed. and it was thought
IN England that where the mortal stroke had
Deen gwen in one county and the death had hap
pened in another. that the offence was not con-
stmInate or complete in either; that the jury of
the first county could not take notice of the
death which took place in the second and that
the jury IN the second could not inquire Of the
wOundlng in the first. Finally the statute of 2
ana s. 6 Edw. E. was passed by parliament,
when provided that in such cases 1.-The trial
snail De IN the county where the death happens
In TINS country the question has been passed
upon by the highest courts in several OF the
wealth VS.. Linton, the court of appeals were
unanimously of the opinion that the defendant
could not be tried and convicted of the murder
charged in the indictment. which alleged the
virginia and the death of the person stricken at
county in the state of Ohio. @ Va cases, 2O5 }
In Mississippi, in the case of StOughton VS.. the
state, where it appeared that the death wound
was lnfilcted in one county. while the death oc-
CURED In another, the high court of errors and
hn in6i i0fu ron6f1 f1,o
iOlioWlng language 'The better opinion seems
TO nave been that, by the common law, where
the oiOw was given in one county and the death
happened in another the offender was not triable
In either. 03 Sm and NJ, 255.)
a, me supreme court of New Jersey in the case of
the State VS.. Carter, 6 Dutch 499), held that
an Indictment charging feloniOus assault in
New York. and that the party injured came into
and died from its effects in New Jersey, alleged
no crime against the state. The concluding
portion OF the opinion of the court is as follows:
- 1t is said that if we do not take Jurisdiction
tne defendant will go unpunished, inasmuch as
the party in jured not dying in New York, he
cOuid not be guilty of murder there. But New
YORK may provide by law for such cases, and if
&c.
Ihe question was also cOnsideredin in North Car
ollna IN Orrells case q Der, 139) and in Ten
nesseeln Riley's case g Humph, GAG. and in the
year lSO9 the old Circuit Court of the District of
Columbia, sitting in AleXandria-which place
was then part of the District-gave Judgment
lor the defendant in the case of the United
States VS.. Baden, in which case the prisoner had
been indicted for manslaughter, and in which it
appeared that the mortal blow was given in
Alexandria and the death happened in st.
Mary county, in the state of Maryland, The
case is reported in vol 1, at page 54S of Cranchs
circuit Court Reports and although the defend
ant had been found guilty as indicted, the court
held that underline circumstances the offence
was not complete within its Jurisdiction. The
prisoner was, however, held to answer an in
dictment for assault and battery
The common law as laid down in these de-
clsiOnS is the law Of this District TODAY