Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-05-23
EXCEPTIONS 0vERRUlED.
President Garfelds Assassin Certainly
to be Executed June 80.
The Court in Banc Denies New Trial
to GuIteau.

WAsHINGIoy. May %.
The announcement that the decision of the
court in banc upon exceptions in the Guiteau
case would be read this forenoon, attracted
an unusual gathering at the Circuit Court
| The place within the bar was occupied by
members, among whom were Dietrict At
torney Corkhill and Davidge, representing
the prosecution and Charles II. Reed for the
| defence. At 1O15 the judges took their
places.
Justice James said ! am instructed by
the court to announce the decision in the case
of the United States Charles vs.. j. Guiteau, up
on the exceptions to judgment of the criminal
court.
He then read from manuscript the decision
| of the court, and after reciting the crime for
which the accused was tried, passed to the
consideration of the question of jurisdiction.
The Indictment was drawn under section
$3.50 of the revised statutes of the United
states. and although indictments under this
section had always been sustained by the
courts of this district, it was deemed best to
review the question in this connection, mas
much as this issue had been raised in this
case. The application of this section was
sustained after full and careful examination
of its language and evident intent. and JUS
tice James then proceeded TO review the
authorities, pertinent to the exception, raised
BY the defence, that the courts of this district
could not take jurisdiction because the blow
was stru k in one county and death ensued
in another. BY the early authorities there
was TO confusion. and it was held that the
offence could be inquired into where the fatal
blow was struck; that the murder subsisted
in the fatal blow. and consequently was COM
mitted where the fatal blow was struck. 1t
was only when new trials were introduced
that juries were no longer allowed to find
verdicts upon their knowledge, and under
George w juries were summoned from
courts where the felony was committed. The
confusion which at one time existed on the
question where the trial of the felony should
take place, when the blow was given in one
county and death occurred in another, arose
from uncertainty whether the crime could be
considered as completed in either county,
and the common law seemed to have settled
the principle that the crime was committed
where the fatal blow was struck. However,
no such traditions or anachronioms are
found in the common law were adopted by
tie constitution of the United States when it
adopted trial by jury.
The functions of our juries are to hear wit
nesses and to occupy all the ground covered
by the jurisdiction of the court. In this case
the application of federal law was a much
higher consideration, and under this law the
crime of murder is definitely defined and its
punishment prescribed, and where the terms
| of our statute law are 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 enlightenment
Navy yards, forts, arsenals, dock yards and
| the District of Columbia were reserved from
the jurisdiction of the States and placed I'M
der the jurisdiction of the federal law, and
/ 81 nj L.
| federal statute $3.50 meant protection from
the crime of murder. The simple question
here is whether this crime was, in this case
committed within the time, meaning and in
tent Of this statute. Upon this point the
court were of the opinion that if the act of
| the defendant achieved MURDER then the
crime was clearly cOgnizable under the fed
eral statute by the courts of this district.
Summing up upon this question Judge James
said: ave hold, therefore. that the criminal
court had jurisdiction to try, convict and
sentence defendant, and we come now to the
inquiry whether error committed upon
| the trial"
After briefly discussing the alleged error
in the questions put to expert witnesses,
Judge James said: I'VE find no error in the
admission of this testimony or in the ruling
Of the court upon the admission of Mrs
Dummies evidence The remaining ex-
ceptions discussed by Judge James were to
the introduction by the prosecution of evil
dence tending to show acts of immortality on
the part of defendant. This, he held, was
strictly rebuttal testimony, and there was
clearly no error. Upon the point that the
court below had failed to charge the Jury
that the test of insanity was whether the de-
PENDANT had the power to resist as well as to
discriminate between right and wrong, Judge
To, l.lJ sl., =
not call for any ruling upon this point ard
consequently there could be no error on the
part Of the court"
The last exception was the day fixed for
the execution, which in the opinion of the
court did not constitute an error Judge
James said although the court was unanimous
IN the views set forth, shere were some aues-
tiuns which it was desirable to discuss more
fully than could be done in the opinion he
had read, and Justice Hagner had consented
to discuss these questions in separate
opinion.
Justice Hagner said although of the opin-
ion that nothing is necessary to be added to
the opinion of Justice James, still, so much
stress had been placed by the distinguished
counsel for the defence upon the law as it
existed in Maryland, when the federal stat
ute was passed, upon the claim that, under
the law, as it then existed, this crime could
not have been tried and punished here. |
have deemed it of consequence to show just
what the law was. He then proceeded to
review the Maryland law, and held that un-
der the Maryland act of 1855 the indictment
would have been good in this district. 1t ap-
pears passing strange, said Justice Hagner,
that the law should appear ID be at variance
with common sense. Suppose that it had
happened that boundary line should have
run between the theatre where Lincoln was
shot and the house where he died, it would
have been most repugnant to common sense
to have risen the issue that his murderer
could not have been tried, because the crime
was not complete in either jurisdiction. The
law undoubtedly contemplated the trial and
ishment where felony was committed, and
murder was assuredly committed where the
fatal blow was struck. Chief Justice Cartier
made the following announcement:
"The opinions which have been uttered
are the unanimous opinions of the court.
That new trial is denied and the judgement
below affirmed in this case" after which the
court was adjourned.
NEW HAMPSHIRE HORROR.
A Woman Fatally Shot by Her Husband.