Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-14

upon swears out a warrant against B
for an assault and battery, which war
rant the justice on hearing dismissed,
dividing the costs equally between
complainant and defendant. A, not
satisfied, but burning for revenge, HES
to the County Court, pours the tale OF
his wrongs into the eyer-open ear OF
the attorney for the Commonwealth
with the result an indictment
against b for felonious and
malicious assault, and woundlng,
with intent to main, dishgure,
disable, and kill, and bench-warrant
accordingly, which three magistrates OF
the county, on full hearing, very pro-
perly dismissed. say properly, Mr..
Editor. although, technically, the de-
PENDANT was probably guilty of an as
sault and; battery but there was no
felony in the case, and the indictment
and bench-warrant, though possibly of
laundering sound" to some, carried
no terrors to the justices in this case:
and were in reality travesty and a
farce. And yet "Fair Trial" would
have Il sent on to the County Court
without examination, to be tried on a
charge which should never have been
made and could never DE sustained, the
defendant harassed and annoyed, and
the Commonw ealth put to the heavy
expense Of a prosecution in a court OF
record simply to give the de-
PENDANT at the outside few days
in Jail, or impose a small fine, which
would, in all probability, never be col
lected. This would be fair trial,
wouldn't it? .. Another case: Two
brothers, A and B, incensed at an injury
| done TO a little brother, with friend
seek out the aggressor, Cone of the
brothers demanding an apology, while
the others remain aside to prevent in
reference. The apology is refused,
and a fight ensues between the two,
and. members Of C's family coming out
to his assistance. the fight becomes
general, no weapons save fists being
used, however, and nothing worse
being given or received on either side
than blackeyes or bruised faces. c
and his family, fancying themselves
very much aggrieved, apply to
the County Court and the at
torney for the Commonwealth with the
result: twelve indictments against
A., b., little brother, and friend-three
against each-all charging a felonious
and malicious beating, cutting, wound
ing, &C., with intent to main. diSiigure,
&C., and bench-warrsntS accordingly.
Three magistrates, upon a full hearing
of these warrants, dismissed them all.
Suppose these parties had been denied
the right Of preliminary examination,
/ but had been taken to the County Court
and there put upon trial. The result
would have doubtless been the same,
except that the Commonwealth would
have been some hundreds Of dollars
poorer by the experiment.
| might 60 on, Mr.. Editor, and multi
ply instances where vexatious and
frivolous prosecutions OF this kind have
received their quietps at the hands of
some good, hard common-senSed county
magistrate. land city, too, for that mat
teri instead of being sent on to the
County or Corporation Court with no
other result, save to mulct both sides
in costs and expenses, but not because
the Justices judgment in a felony case
was final, as - Fair Trial" from the
tone of his article, seems to think.
Certainly not, but because the attorney
for the Commonwealth, after his de-
cision, rarely deems it worth his while
to worry any further with the case.
The very instance " Fair Trial y
cites in illustration of his position is an
unfortunate one. The offence Of fslO-
nious assaults is, above all others, the
source and cause of the evil | complain
of and Of unwarranted costs and eX-
pcnse to the Commonwealth. Every
one who has bodily injury to complain
Of nowadays deems it feloniouS and
malicious, and, while still smarting I'M
der a sense of the injury, it requires
little stretch Of the Imagination to con-
vince him and induce him to swear
that it was done with intent to
main, disfgure, disable, and kill"
AS a consequence, this class Of offences
affecting the person comprise a very
large percentage of the prosecutions Oc-
curing in our courts to-day, consume
a very large portion of the time of our
courts and juries, and entail great ex-
pense upon the Commonwealth and
yet how few, comparatively, result in
verdicts of confinement in the penten-
tiary-how many in triiling yerdicts Of
from one-cent to ive-dollar fines, or
from one to thirty days in jail I've
no doubt Mr.. Witt, the able Attorney
for the Commonwealth of Richmond,
could give us some very interesting in.
formation on this subject if called
upon.
If ever the hand Of the Legislature
was needed, in my judgment, to inter-
pose and stop the abuse OF its process
and its laws, as well as the enormous
and upjustifable expense, it is, think,
in reference to this very offence, either
by enlarging the jurisdiction of the
magistrate, lowering ita grade, or re-
straining in some measure or manner
the complaining party in his estimate
of the nature or extent Of his grievances,
or the magistrate or attorney for the
Commonwealth in framing the COM
plant.
But saving Of useless costs and ex-
pcnses is not by any means the greatest
benefit afforded by the statute III ques-
ton. 1t, or something Of its nature, is,
in my belief, almost if not entirely in
dispensable to just and impartial ad
ministration Of the criminal law. Has
not man accused of crime a right to
some preparatory notice: Is it merci-
full, is it just, to arrest him without
warning upon bench-warrant charging
him with crime, and arraign him forth
with upon the indictment which the law
declares shall be tried at the same term
at which found unless good cause be
shown for continuance? The law