The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1882-05-26
Gnlteau Must Hang.
The Decision of the Court Delivered
Monday.

Juuge james at Washington On Mon
day read the decision ct the court in
banc upon The exceptions in the Gni-
teau case. Afier rcciling tho crime for
which the accused was tried, Instice
james passed to the question OF iuris.
diction. The Indictment was drawn
under section 533J of the revised stat
utcs of the United States. Although
the indictments under this section nj.
ways have been sustained by the coucts
of the district, il was deemed best TO
review the question in this case. The
application OF this sect N was sustained
ater full and careful examination of
its Language and evident intent. Jus.
tice JalDes then reviewed the authori-
ties pertinent TO the exception, that the
courts OF the district cunld not take
jurisdiction because the blow was
struck i'll ono county and death cnsued
in another. by the earlier authorities
there was no confusion, and it was held
the oilense could be inquired into where
the fatal blow was struck that mu, der
subsistcd in a fatal blow, and conse-
quently was committed where the fatal
blow was struck. 1t was only when
new trials were introduced that iurcs
were Ito longer allowed to find verdicts
upon their own knowledge, and under
George the Fourth jurics were SUM-
moned from courts where felony was
committed. The Confusion which ut
one time existed OH The question where
trial of felony should take place, when
a blow was gwen i'll one county and
death occurred in another, arose from
uncertainty whether Tie crime coull be
considered Completed in aunthcr cn,'nty
co"".s" -, aoned - haSa as.tiod
the principle that u crime was COM
United wh.le the fatal blow was struck
however, no such traditions or anlchro-
nisihs us are ioui'u i'll common law were
aqopleu ny the constitution Of the
C"i.eu 0'ates whei IL adopted the trial
ny jury. Inc lunciions Of our juries
ooIaPy aii 'he ground covered by the
Jurisuictloh Oh court. In this case the
uppi,ohtloh vi inc federal law is of
ilucn hlgner consideration, and under
.nis l"m 'ne crime OF murder is dell
hileiy uelheu, and the punishment pre-
scribed, ana where the terms of our
statute law arc perfectly clear and well
defined there was no intention on the
part OF Congress that the courts should
go back to the common law for cnlight-
eminent. Navy yards, forts, arscnals,
dockyards and the District of Columbia
were renewed from the jurisdiction OF
states and plsced under the jurisdiction
of the federal law. The ordinary, rca-
sonable meaning of this federal statute
(No. $500 meant protection from .i the
heffee is ~ ml,ut,.e ;,pnu az
case so-.-~;..-i -'.I1;" .he, true ne s,,
ing OF ms statute! upoh ..ts PoinI 'lI, ~,
court were OF OPINION 'iial II .'ic uc. VI
the defendant achieVeu iiiurucr ,nen .,ic
crime was cic"''y oos hN'''o """I' ~, ~
federal statutes ny 'he courts W '"'s
district. ,;, os,;o,
III summing up upon ms qucs',o'
Justice james saiu: AS crii''ihai tho
conrt had Jufisuictlom 10 lr!' c1'''Ic'
and sentence me defendant ana we
now come TO the inquiry, wne,hcr eIIol
was committed upon iriai' Al'ei
briefly discussing tue aiiegeu error III
The questions put TO the expert WI,
nesses, Justice James said: I'VE 1no
no error in the admission nj ms testl'
mony, or IN the inllig o! tne court upon
the admission OF Mrs. Dummies evl'
dence." Justice James SAID the exist
confidential relationship between nus
band and wife, and the witness dehla
that she saw any evidence OF 1t can N
no way be considered asa, as ulsc, los ,go 'n'
coniuen S uo.muor , ,%o a. ,o W y,
, ., nv nv ,,;5o'oa The 70
manning exceptions discussed by jus
tice James were to the introduction by
the prosecution OF the evidence tending
to show acts of immortality on the part
of the defendant. This, he held, was
strictly 'rebuttal testimony, aud was
clearly no error.
Upon the point that the court below
failed to charge the jury that the test Of
insanity was whether the defendant had
the power 20 resist as well as discrimi
nate between right and wrong, Justice
James said: ave hold the evidence
did not call for any ruling on thi:
point, consequently there could be lie
error on the part of the court"
Iic last exception was 10 the DAY
fixed for the prosecution, which in the
opinion of the court did not constitute
error,
Justice lanes said although the court
was unamimsus on the views set forth,
there were some ques,i ms which it was
desirable 10 discuss more fully than
could well be done in the opinion inst
lst read, and Justice IIagner had con-
?rXt;6o ,ah Mems nah19S9 610Stj in, \
10 nocossor, 70 no oddod 10 tho .,n;n;or
Of Jns,;co ianeS .,iIi os co nncI, stree
has heen nIaced hv tho Jofanso nnor
tho law as II eyistoi IN Morvland when
tliC iCoSi at btdtutO w to Duooth anu uPOil
er i ,h '"a' cr;me con,I No, ha ,,;od
tAiekSN shio tsihO tpuiN NV w ttiCb