Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-02-01
xandria Gazette and Virginia Advertiser
an Interesting Jurlsdictional Case.
From the Richmond Whig.

IITuW tue htCQm0QQ w QIR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIZ
GlN1A-HENDRICKs vs.. COMMONWEALTH.
Brief of the attorney General.
This is writ of error from the Orcui. Cours
CT Fairfax county. affirming the Judgment Of
the Couaty Court of that county in the above
case, wherein Robert Hendricks Wes trisd aud
convicted Ct unlawful fishing i tho Potomac
river.
Accused claimed that at the tim, OF The CON-.
mission OF the offence he VAS a resident and
ci'z,n of Maryland. Upon The merits. Hend
rlcss is clearly proven to be guilty, and it seems
equally olesr that III, claim IF residences and
clnz,psbip 10 Msr,land was we'll founded, and
2dsr crdiasry ciIclmstsroes. be should have
been tried, under the Compact between Vir-
Qinis aod MARYLAND, 10 the courts of The latter
Sht, Ccds 1873. page ITO.
Bat the County Court OF Fairfax is our,
of general criminal Jurisdiction. aud AZ thi;
gensral Jurisdiction was specially modified by
tbst compsc', 10 the case OF ci;z,ns CT Mary
land, /: is submitted that this special modiGos
ton should hsvs been pleaded 10 abate meus.
The demurrer did not properly raise The
question IL admitted all Ct the facts to bs
trus as charged 10 the indictment, and the in
dior ent 10 this CASE ia 10 the usual form.
The Venu, is laid 10 Tairfsx c,uoty plicitly;
the defendant was brought by usual process
baf1re that court, and submitted his person to
its neutrality-suspicious. BY attorney and de-
murrcr. 1t is clear tho indictment, upon tho
demurrer, i5 good.
There WAS 90 plea TO The Jurisdiction Of The
Virginia court. and if there had been 90 &c.
quiltsl btre rendered Oh the plea of not guilty.
the on'Y plea 10 the osse), this aequitlsl uu.
doubleday, could have been pleaded 10 bar CT q
prosecution 10 MARY lard, converse the COZ
vic;ion was GOOD.
Again, Maryland might, through her Execu.
tive, demand the surrender OF Hendricks, If q
Mary laod oliz,n and. doubtless, change OF
Jurisdiction could thus be effso:ed. This court.
even now, Oh such demand, might reverse the
judgment below. remand the o,ss. with sn order
or req lest that the attorney for the Common
wealth. OF Fairf.x c;ulty should enter noNe
proSequt, spd the court deliver tn, accused for
trial 70 the Maryland authorities.
BATH ia submitted that this Was mere
personal privilege. that the accused might
either claim or Wsiv., and that by failure 10
plead to tbs Jurisdiction ct the court, be could
DOT ty demurrer or instruction r.i,e The ques-
tion. He pleaded "nct guilty" alone. which
Tas mare tr.v.rse of tb" criminal charge,
and not of arisdio:icn. Vide . Num-, page
PA.
Aeaiu, The c,urs very properly refused the
instruction.
lst, It embraced t,vo distinct sutj:ce. VIDE
psge9.
~. The lr.vis, Ct rasidslc, or citizenship
OF MsrSlaod was matter of d, f,rcs, and could
not Go otherSise res aed
81. The Instruction. vir.uaI'y without res
SOD, dlreo's sp ecquisttl.
Again. the jury WAS the judges Of The facts
aud The rsc5ru shows that the offanos was com
mi:sed wi,tio tbs iurjtd ion OF Virgins. At
least there WIS doubt az to this matter. and
Jury solved doubt ssai1ss accused. Vide.
psge7.
10 abserco o! the o,mpsc. aforesaid. ths
statute gives latitude for trial of offsno:s cnm-
nlsted 10 COUNTIES on water COURSES. Vide
Code 1873 pages .054 snd 2lS.
AS am sure this Court would cot desire 10
violate suy comfy or agreement With the St,te
Ct Maryland, deem it proper to add that
hav, been informed by my predecessor. Gen.
Field, that the Hon Ohsrles j. NJ. Quinn,
Attorney General of Maryland. has desired to
have time to present to your Houors printed
argument egalrs; the Jurisdiction of the Vir
glnla courts, to which INDULGENCE 1 interpose
90 tb),c!l>n. +. s. BLAIR.
Attorney Gentr.l