The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-23

COuRTS OF INJUSTICE.

task for some of its recent criticisms upon
the decisions of the Supreme Court, the ten
| dency of which, in our opinion, was to shield
crime and criminals, to breed disrespect of law
and of courts, and thus aid in the develop
ment of conditions out of which arise mobs
for the execution of justice Immediately upon
the commission of some specially heinous of
Tense against individuals and society. The
journal might not, indeed did not, stop to
weigh words with that marvellous nicely which
causes Supreme Court to reverse the judg
ment in notorious murder case because of
the possible chronological difference between
the words ''connive' and consent" but as
to the substantial truth and justice of the
criticisms which have appeared in these col
umns, we are willing to abide the general
| Judgment of the public, both professional and
lay Tie criticisms have been all based upon
the decisions of the court, and of all courts,
and what the Journal has been doing is being
done by public Journals everywhere, in every
section of the country, and by professional
| journals as well ashy the lay press The charge
is that courts too much pay attention to triv-
iaI technicalities, losing sight of right and
justice, seemingly glad to avoid a decision
upon the merits of case, if there be any
incidental question or quiddity upon which
the learned judge can spin verbal web as un-
substantial as it is destructive to the beauty
and purity of justice. The Law Journal tells
us that this technical ruling is not the fault
of courts but of the Legislature. Is this
true9 Let us see. Section 1891 of the Re
vsed Statutes, 1881, reads as follows:
Gin the consideration of the questions
which are presented upon an appeal the Su-
preme Court shall not regard technical errors
or defects OF exceptions TO any decision or ac
ton of the court below which did not, in the
opinion of the Supreme Court, prejudice the
substantial rights of the defendant"
Is not that as plain as the English language
can put it? And by the enactment of that stat
ute has not the Legislature done all that it
could do, and left it absolutely with the court
to see that nothing shall interfere with sub
stantial justiceY Is it an error that prejudiced
the substantial rights of the defendant in a
trial for violating the liquor law of the State,
! that the indictment OF information did not set
forth in hec verba, or that twas not proved spe-
officially, that "a gill is less quantity than
quartz We should like to see the judge or
any man of ordinary common sense, who would
maintain that such failure or defect
as that, if committed in the lower
court, preiudiced the substantial rights of the
defendant, who was convicted on satisfac-
tory evidence of having sold a gill of liquor,
shall not be sold in '1ess quantities than
quart Yet it was because the court had mo
! judicial knowledge that gill was less than a
quart" that conviction under the liquor law
was reversed. Was the raising of this puerile
technicality into a sufficient reason for re-
versal the fault of the court or of the Legisla-
ture?
Again: In SS Dice, PIP. 5O4-524, will be
found the case of Smurr vs. The State, on APP
peal from the Allen County Criminal Court.
This was a conviction of murder with SEN
tence of Imprisonment for life. The attorneys
for the defense asked the court for instruc-
tons in writing, as the statute provides,
printed volume of the statutes the sections
defining the various grades of the crime of
murder. For this and for this alone, the case
was reversed. The opinion was by Justice
Hammond, and it says:
Gas already stated, if the court below had
copied the sections of the statute read to the
| jury into its written charge, there would have
been no error. But this was not done 1t
read those sections to the jury, not from any
copy transcribed into its written charge, but,
as the bill of exceptions states, from the sec
ond volume of the statutes of the State of In
diana"
There is no assertion here that the sections
were misread, or that a single juror noticed
that they were read from the printed volume
which is competent evidence by law-and not
from manuscript; but solely for this cause the
| Judgment of the lower court was reversed, and
tedious, expensive trial made of none effect.
We should like to have Judge Hammond take
his decision and read it in the light of the 89lst
section of THE Revised Statues and tell us on
his oath as a member of the Supreme Court,
what Substantial right of the defendant"
was ''preiudiced' by this "error' of the court
below2 Justice collars, elected from Allen
county, dissented from this most impotent and
inconsequent Judgment, saying;
'What contend form this case is, that while
the court below committed an error it is not
c,tcb amor it1utifiaa ne tba