The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-06-20
LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.
CRITICAL REVIEW OF RECENT oPIN-
IONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The Statute Against the Bringing of
Stolen Property Into the State Ignored
"A Charge in One State Amounts to
O Conviction in Another.

The Supreme Court, owing to the con-
slant grind and multiplicity OF cases, is
singularly free from error. That body is
high interpreter Of the laws, and TO its
credit be it said, seldom oyersteps the
charter bestowed upon 1t by the same
laws which it is called upon to interpret
There are times, however, when the grave
and honorable jurists seem to overlook the
fact that their duty is to interpret the law
as they find it, and not to make laws by
Legislative opinions. Two Of these cases
have come up in Shelby County recently,
which are causing considerable comment
One OF these is the case OF the State against
Wilson. The charge against Wilson was
perjury, in having sworn falsely before a
Justice Of the Peace in qualifying upon a
bond. His case was taken to the Supreme
Court on the grounds that the oath was
not material TO the issue joined, that it
was in the nature OF an ex parte proceed
ings and that there was no authority in
law for Justice OF the Peace TO admin
lister an oath in ascertaining mans finan-
cial standing or solvency when qualifying
as a bondsman.
The Supreme Court held that the case
from which the original appeal from the
Justice was taken was full, complete and
finished, and that the oath qualifying as q
bondsman, to appeal the case, was new
and original proceeding that while no
positive authority exists in law for JUS
tice to administer an oath in the case of
would-be bondsman, yet as the Justice is
in duty bound to satisfy himself us to a
bondsman's solvency, by inquiring OF his
neighbors, etc., the duty carries with it the
authority TO administer an oath to the
bondsman, and that false swearing in this
respect is perjury. The opinion is purely
legislative.
There is another opinion recently sent
down in the case OF Matthews versus the
State. This is one OF the most interesting
cases in the records, and has been decided
frequently before. This late decision is
dramatically opposed to all former
rulings. 1t is all the more singular be-
cause unnecessary. Matthews stole prop
erty in Mississippi and brought II into this
State. There is statute making such inn
portation felony, and under this statute
offenders are sent 10 the penitentiary fire.
quently. In the Matthews case, however,
the charge was larceny, and with the facts
stated the case was appealed.
Among other things in the bill OF rights
which h,ve been incorporated into the
Constitution OF this State is that the nc.
cused shall be tried publicly By jury Of
his peers, in the county where the ofiense
with which he Is charged is committed
In order the more fully TO enable officers
20 capture offenders. and to prevent such
offenders from escaping through technical
loopholes, the Legislature passed n law.
section 1926, to the effect that when a
crime was committed within one quarter
OF a mile from county line, the venue
laid in either county. The constitution
alily OF this law was attacked successfully
in the Armstrong case. and Justice Caruth-
ers delivered the opinion. lie discussed
the law and the principles pertaining
thereto most deliberately, and applauded
the salutary effect OF the provision upon
public morals, and regretted that itc could not
-bc continued. But, said lac, "when the
fundamental law rises up before Us, we
must stop, no matter what the conso.
quences." lie held that the fourth Of a mile
law ought 90 be maintained, but that Il
could not without depriying the accused
OF his constitutional right 10 be tried by an
impartial jury in the county where the
oIense was committed, aud, therefore, a
trial in any other county could not be had,
aud that the section quoied.was unconsti-
tutional null and void.
This was the c0unty-linc question where
both counties belonged TO one State. IL
went farther than the English common
law, which permitted an olIensc com.
mitied In one coun;yto be punished In an
other, but the English law, IL has often
been noticed, thought much more Of the
comfort and convenience OF the Judges
than II did Of the rights Of individuals
brought before the courts. In this coun'
try il IL well eettled that man must b,
tried in the county where the oiicnso Is
committed, and that a change OF venue
cannot be taken unless nj his request OF
with his concurrence. This idea Is ~
fixed. even In our own State, that section
4,074 provides that when tho commission
Of an oifcnsc IL commenced In this stat,
and contaminated In another State. the
offender IL liable 10 punishment therefor
Sin the county where the oiiense was com
menccd."s
Our Supreme Court has always main
tanned this, and especially In the Sampson
case, Ith Humphreys, where IL Is held
that when goods we're stolen in another
Stats the oct was no more 10 bc considered
larceny than II they had been stolen IL
Africa or Mexico. Laws Furnishing lar
ccny arc punishable in different way
uitier the different municipal laws %
each Stale, and what would consii'
tute larceny In one State might moi
constitute larceny in another. Undci
the law Of England, while the accuse
could be prosecuted In one country for an
oaenso committed In another, an oiicns,
committed upon the high seas or beyond
the jurisdiction OF the English courts
could no, be- taken coguizince of-not ever
when the crime was piracy and the stolen
goods were brought into England. II
Is well settled principle that !
II no offence under the laws Of Tcnncssc,
20 commit crime IN Mississippi. Eacl
State Is an independent sovereignty tina
prcscribcs ils own laws, aud with thos,
laws no other independent commonwealth
has ANYTHING 10 do. Without the prcsen
legislation on the subject making II
felony 10 bring stolen goods into this state
no indictment would Ne, and with thu
provision Il Is not clear that the name an,
nature Of the crime can DO changed by nj
Indictment for larceny. And, indeed
under a strict construction Of the law. !
Is doubtful whether or not the section
making the bringing Of stolen property int
this State felony would stand or tia
this class Of offenders can be- anythinl
more then n fugitive from justice. 4,
enforce the provision, Tennessee Official
must needs inquire into the domestic law
OF sister States 10 discover what there con