Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1889-07-13
Tic Taylor Case.

The following letter from A. S. Sc
gar, Esq. published in Richmond Dis
patch of recent date. sets forth the rea.
sons fer the action of Judge Gnnter in
the Taylor case, and in Difference to the
wishes of many of our readers the same
is republished through our columns.
HAMPTON, VA. June Goth, 1889.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:
In our issue of Friday last 1.-THE 2Sth)
occurs this editorial paragraphs: Judge
Gunter'S decision in the Taylor case has
attracted much attention. Was it a cors
rect one?' In response t0 your query !
beg 10 refer yon to Thornton case oath
Graft. $50. Susan Thornton WAS in
lictel for and convicted of tile murder
of her husband by poison. The case
went TO tile Court Of Appeals. and one
nf the grounds Of exception WIS that
1.-THE clerk failed To charge the jary as
10 tho different grades of hOmicile:H
In Taylo.'s case the main ground CT ex.
ccption WAS that the curt did charge
the Jury rs to the different gra'les of
homicide and instructed them TINT they
might find the prisoner guilty of MIR
der in The first or second degree, or OF
voluntary or involuntary mansl luglGer
Under this charge the jury found the
prisoner guilty Of murder III tile second
degree, and Judge Gunter has set aside
the verdict because it is All illegal YER
dict.
In Thornton case cited supra. Judge
Moncuie. delivering the unanimous
opinion of the court. Silid: THE Charge
was murder in the first degree Ivy poison.
Tile prisoner was either guilty of that
offence or guilty of no offence at all.
The law expressly declares murder by
poison to lie murder of the first degree.
Aud if the prisoner was guilty. of The
murder ns charged in the Indictment
she must of necessity have leen guilty
Of murder in the first degree. She
could, by possibility ilave been guilty
nf nothing else And it could not.
therefore, have been erroneous to charge
the Jury tn that effect. To have charged
them rs to what constituted murder In
the second degree, or voluntary or in
voluntary manslangliter. or as to the
measure of the punishment Of each
conld lave answered no good purpose.
and could lave llrd TO other effect, if
any than to confuse the jury or rnislpad
them into error In the light Of this
.hcision hy this sentiment Virginia jnrist,
whose name Is IL treasured household
word in every V ryinia home. there
can lie no doubt that the verdict III
Taylor's case was erroneous, illogical,
and illegal. ,JuIlIe Gunter was COM
pellpd to set it aside. Knowing him az
do I can say with conIl,lenc. lie wonlil
never lave disturbed 1t unless lie had
hReeii compelled by conscience and the
law of the land 81 tn do. Having reach
rtl this conclusion. what could lie do
other than discharge her from custody?
Judge MOncure says she was either
guilty of murder in the first degree or
guilty Of no offence at iii. She had
neen tried for murder in the first de
cree. aid the jury by their verdict had
found her gully of murder in the sec
ond degree. Now comes section 1910 Of
orr Code Which provides That If the
verdict lie set aside and Il new trial
granted the accused. he shall not he
tried for any higher offence than that of
WHICH lie WAS CoEYlCtctl III Tue EiSI
trial She was convicted Of mud r in
the second degree. This conviction We
have seen, WIS illegal. We have Judge
Moncure saying thit she is guilty of no
offence except murder in the first de-
gree, and we have The C.Hle declaring
Llat site c;lnnut lie again trie,l for that
offense. The only legal and logical so
luton was to discharge her from fur
tier prosecution.
Another trial would lave inevitably
have It'd to the same final result. sub
nit with great Difference that section
4O4e OF our Code should he repealed,
and in lien of it the doctrine us lald
down in Brisgs's case 18th Virginia,
554) should be embodied into orr stat
ute law. The accused shonlll lie held to
have waived whatever right lie lia I'M
der the law not tn l'c tried again Ivy OBJ.
tanning reversal of the first Judgment.
If The first trial was mistrial then
there could have been 10 real Jeopardy.
Very Respectfully,
ARTHUR 5. SKGAI.