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

INSPECTING THE COMMISSION OF MURDER
And, FIRST was IL conclusion a rule OF the common
law that murder not committed in patuc"iai
place, for example in particular county, IL tne ueA'
ensued in another county 1t Is first stated az o
that in such the offender could not ne ,o
murder in either county and then IL Is claimed that me
of this fact was that no conpiete y n
must turn 10 the higher authorities on the aW
and to the facts Of history The preos oi e 9 rcatS
as one of the landmarks In determinnng ms question:
and it necessary that we also sho"q turn suS 10
SO much OF II ~ reiates 10 lniS >, su,Iee t
ia in the following words Forasmuch as the mos.
necessary Office duty of the law is to preserve and
the life of man. and condlghy 10 punish such per
that unawfuly and wllfuly mlrder stay ana Ge
comcth in sundry counties of this realm that man is
feonously stricken In county and after dieh anoth
laws or of this realm that sufficient indct-
ment thereof taken in any Of the said two coun
the county where such party died OF such stroke
take knowledge of said stroke, being In foregn
nearly together; nor can the Jurors OF the
where the the d ssGhe in another ooun
although snch death most apparently came OF the sam9
stroke; so that the Kings majesty within his own realm
murderers or manqueeTs for offences In TINS FORM com
mted and dOne for redress and punish
ment OF which offences and safeguard or life, be II
These words suggested two important observations.
intention Of the Legislature deal with of "mur
DER and the second describes the persons who are sa
to have escaped "murderers" 1t not new Of
fence but the old offence of murder which was TO be
provided for and this to be done by providing
sufficient Indictment The other observation is that the
tain off enders was that the Jurors OF one count
could take knOwedge OF stroke or death In another
e Mot H e eSey cntv
while is armavely stated that the obstacle In the
Of Furnishing the crime lay in the tact that the ures
lacked to take knowledge beyond their counties
The assertions of this legislative preamble, OF course,
the actual state Of the common law and shown by
earlier decisions to be too broad 1t not true that
ha flvi n1i led
in any case where the fatal blow was struck in one
comfy and death ensued in another statement made by
the Court John Lang's case which decdedn Hen
NII 10, dyninc years before the statute OF and
Edward VI is conclusive authority that the crime might
be tried the county where the blow struck If the
body brought thther from the country where the
death happened so that the jury might have the
dence of the death within their lawful cOgnlzance
After stating where blow and the death hap
pened different counties the Court said In this case
1t after death TO bring the dead man,
TO wit the body into the county where he was struck
such practice shows r that the obstacle IN the way
Of an indictment was the Limitation Of the juIys power
To take knowledge aud secondly, that the murder
was deemed 10 nave Deen committed III INC county "eIo
the blow was struck Notwithstanding the consequent
death Happened in another county
Only year later q Henry ILL., p. 81, where
such device the removal OF the body appears To
have been resorted To, the Court went step further
ana IL was heId that an lhdlcieh Whch laiu t1e Do"
in MiddeseX and the death III Essex was good because
notice OF the principal could take notice Of the
death accessory though in another county There was
point that in common law the murder was committed
said 1t that il is not material where he died.
ior the striking the material point but it requires
DEATH otherwise il is not felony but whether he died
in one place or another it is not material
MURDER DONE WHERE THE BLOW is STRUCK.
The early authorities leave TO doubt that the
law, before It's interrupted and con
fused by the statute OF Edward w. held that when the
fatal blow struck in county and death ensued in
another the murder was committed where the blow
struck: whatever difficulty may have Teen in the way
of an indictment and trial lay III The question whether
the jury could know ythng OF tue death in another
We are of Ike @
which then attached TO this question: unless We remem
Der that originally both the grand and petit jury found
the fact wholly of their knowledge, and mat, al
though for time before the statute of Edward they
liberty disregard the witnesses and still find
cordlng TO their personal knowledge.
Both Mr. FOrsJ ia, In his History OF Trial by Jury
page l64, and MI starke, in his essay On the TIIa
by jury" cite from the case of Reniger vs. Nagossa
Plowel. Comm ~ statement made ny Slr Robert
Brooke at the time Of the statute Of Edward con-
eerns me functions OIL tde jury Tien shrIw s nss
meant by capacity TO take knowledge. The recorder
said: As to what has been SAID by The Kings Attor-
ney, that there ought witnesses prove the
fact is true that there ought to be two witnesses, at
the civil law but here the issue was 10 be tried by
twelve men, i'll which witnesses not necessary
although there not witnesses evidence gwen
TO them As 1t be found before the Coroner supervision
and arraned and acquitted the inquest shall
who killed hin, although they have not any Witnesses,
that witnesses necessary but where the mat
ter is to be tried by witnesses only. For witnesses
necessary then would follow that theJuros could
not give "a verdict contrary 10 the witnesses whereas
the law Is quite otherwise for when the witnesses Tor
trial of fact are joined TO the inquest my can not
with the jurors tne verdict OF the twelve shall be
This power Of the jury to ind upon their own knowl-
edge recognized by The courts long after the time
1870 hd wnra was snS said even Basnes 0 cae
| by TIE Court Of Common Pleas vaughan Rep. 1857
T Where sH0i tnG cause Of ac.on arises the law
supposes them TO have sufficient knowledge 10 try the
issue and they must, though no evidence
| were given Oh either side in court
| gHlt at %
upon their own knOwleGge-FOrsyth 100; Starkie
| LAW Rev 39s When this power was finally annulled
by the rened trials, trial by jury had been
pracscd for five centuries al least (otdrke 39sl ana
Mr. Forsyth tna the hcton was still kept up
BY requiring them 10 be summoned from the hundred
where the crime was alleged to have been committed
sheriff is Obliged only TO return for the
triI vi any Issue, whether clyll Or criminal twelve good
| 2Us.
| LIMITATION OF THE JURY's INQUIRY.
| This power 10 act personal knowledge fixed the
limitation the inquiry and the jury understood
have cognizance of those matters only which they
might thus know This ii was determined whether
it WAS practicable TO try certain feones in particular
county. 1t inevitable, however, that commentators
| and courts should endeayor to explain and as
| sign reasons for the law. and, in later times
il came to the opinion of of them that the
why sufficient Indictment OF murd could be found
as hey Supposed the fatal blow was struck III one
| temptation OF law tine felony was not completed i'll
either given for fact OF common law
themselves necessarily law and II seems clear That
in this what only fact touching the cognl-
ures has been cOnfOunOod with or supposed 10
establish a definition OF the criuIe Of murier Upon TINS
hypothesis thcy have proceeded 10 show how The muir
may be regarded committed partly LII one county
| and partly in another
The earlier common law authorities seem to have had
| doubt where the felony
| united such case and they seem to have had
| doubt even to the cOgnizance OF the jury,
| IL the could be brought " Jncm. But dOuDs on
this point certainly did grow up, aud the actual condi
non Of opinion, when the statd'e of Edward vi: was
passed, Is fairy stated by Haze Al common law"
says great authority, II man had been stricken
Ia one county and died in another, IL doubtful
whetner ne indlotUle aDIe in either but the
more common opinion that lie might be Indicted
sroke gwen, for the death Is but
uueut mlgnt be found though Ill another county
parry died in another county the body