New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-05-23

opinion that the evidence In the case did not eau Tor
ruling the point made, ana tnat no erfor naS
interviewed In this matter
THE DATE or THE EXECUTION.
Exception is taken to the judgment below on the
ground that the sentence fixes day for execution in VI
olaon Of section s45 of the Revised Statutes OF the Dis
tict OF Columbia The ground OF the obectons that I'M
der that section execution must be- postponed until AFTER
the next term Of the General Term ana tn tHnd IN
to the timo fixed for tho beginning or the
foIIs within and not aftsr the term. We have
not before had occasion 10 construe tho section re,
extenton until after tho next term Of the Criminal
Court and not Of the General Term and that the
affected fixing Of the date OF execution Some other
exceptions OF minor Importance were discussed IN the
argument We have considered them, but nave louhd
error in the rulings 10 which they refer
In conclusion Judge James remarked that he had LEFT
TO hls brother Mr. Justice Hagner the presentation OF
the points connection with the laws Of Maryland as APP
plicable to the District OF Columbia
Judge IIagner remarked that although he did not
think IL necessary to add anything TO what had been 80
well expressed by Judge James, yet as good deal o.
stress had been laid in the earnest argument OF
cording to the law as It stood in Maryland at the
time OF the cession OF this territory to the United States
such an offence this twhere the mortal blow was
struck county and the death occurred In another
county had not been punishable in the county where the
blow was struck and possibly not in either county, he
considered it important to present true statement OF
what the Of Maryland at the time OF tho ces-
sion Under the provincial or proprietary Gov
eminent the Governor appointed the Judges
Of the Provincial General Court, and OF the County
Courts. The Provincial General Court had general
Jurisdiction criminal well OF civil matters ana
Jurors summoned from all parts Of the state Inc
Jurisdiction of the County Courts was extended rom time
TO time. until In 1855 act passed giving them
Jurisdiction in capital cases, but permitting
the removal OF such by habeds corpus to the Cen
era Court There also law In existence authOr1l-
ing the Governor the ails crowded To es-
tabsh commissions Of oyer and Termlner TO SIT Ill any
county designated by him but that law did not state
explicitly the extent OF authority or such COM
missions In 1899 a law was passed reciting
that doubts were entertained whether crime
committed shore of Maryland could be on aDeas
corpus tried the other shore and enactng tat hey
could be either shore, 10y the Judges IN oyer
and Terniner sitting either in the county where the
blow struck in the county where tne
death happened. This ACT Of l7s9 was IN
force when the jurisdiction OF the united
States was extended to the District Of Columbia, ana
when, by the Federal law OF 1901 was enacted that
the laws Of Maryland then In force should be III force III
that part Of heb lsrict acquired from Maryland
judge Iagner then proceeded tC examine the case OF
the United States against Blake IN 1910 (ls Cranch),
and the case or the United states against
Rawley in 1913, and argued that these cases
decided nothing conclusive on the point III question
In former tine offence occurred III the virginia
portion OF the District, and there no such general
provision IN the Virginia laws there was IN the Mary
iand law and latter 1t did not appear from the
papers that any part Of the offence committed IN the
District Columbia and therefore, Judge Crawford or
dered the discharge OF the prisoner