Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-06-22

another of the charges made in the article
referred to. To this indictment, or infor
nation, he interposed the plea that he had
been once place in jeopardy The majority
of the Court holds the defense to be good,
and reyerses the order denying the plea.
The decision of the Court must stand as
the correct Interpretation of the law, nor
are We prepared to say that it is not, but
it does appear that there is a great deal 10
be said on the other side of such case.
Indeed, one OF the Justices dissents, and
says:
If a man in one part of his newspaper saws
that a certain person is a thief. and, in another
part, that he killed his mother, the two libels
are just as distinct as are the crimes of larceny
and matrcide. Putting the two things under
one headline or ARTICLE makes no difference.
If the two libels should appear in the same issue
of the newspaper there would be an identity OF
tttg6 OF publication but they would be distinct
in every other respect. That identity of time
would no more make the two libels one than
would unity of time alone make Joint ten
ancy at common law.
The majority of the Court say in sup
port of their view of the case, that to per-
nit the information to stand would be an
invasion of the constitutional provision
that No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy for the same ofense." That the
act that is the essential element Of wrong
in libel, is the publication of language.
That the State cannot split up one crime
and prosecute it in parts. That prosecu-
ton for any part of single crime bars
any further prosecution based upon the
whole or part of the same crime. 1t
then proceeds to argue that the act of libel
was one, and though there were distinct
charges against the person libeled, the
otiense Of publication is not divisable What
appears to be an exceedingly strange case
is cited by the Court in support:
To an information charging the prisoner with
having in his possession forged bank note or
bill OF the Troy Bank with intention TO alter and
pass the same and so 5efraud the said bank of
Troy, he pleaded a former information fled
against him for having IN his possession a bank
note of the Mechanics Bank with the intent to
alter and pass the same, and to defraud said
Mechanics Bank. Upon which last information
the plea ayerred, trial had been had, the pris-
oner had been found guilty and judgment
| thereon impended. To this plea there was a
demurrer, and the Court adiudged the plea suf-
fcient The Court said, among other things
that the act of possessing the several notes was
one ana the same oftense, as much as the act of
stealing number Of articles at the same time
and place.
If, says the Court, the whole ibelous
article had been set forth in the complaint,
no one would contend that several punish
ments could be inflicted II the defendant
had been found guilty. When one commits
crime the prosecutor may carve as large
an ofense out of it as is possible, but he
viii not be permitted to cut twice. These
conflicting views of the justices present
both sides of the case fairly, and while
they might be enlarged upon, we think
that there IS no need to suggest thought in
connection with them. The decision is now
the settled law, and therefore there is
nothing to be gained by disputing it, but
we confess that in Justice McFarland's
dissenting opinion there is much strength
from a layman's standpoint. But the
/ purpose of the law is to prevent litigation
to discourage multiplicity of actions, and
discountenance yexation at law. In this
light alone the decision is in the public
interest. 1t certainly will put at rest, SC
far as the law in this State is concerned, a
question upon which the authorities have
not been uniform in view, as the Court
itself admits.