The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1892-11-19
STOUT'S CASE.
HIS Death Sentence Affirmed by
the Maryland Court of
ADD6alS.

Appears.
On Thursday Chief Judge Alvey OF
the Court of Appeals, filed an opinion
in the case of Alfred Stout vs.. the State
of Maryland.
Stout has been convicted of the killing
of George Ditmay. 1t was charged in
the indictment that the mortal blow was
inflicted in Cecil county, Md, but that
death in consequence of the wound sub
sequently ensued in the city of Philadel-
phia, Pa, and it was held that the State
of Maryland had no jurisdiction in the
matter. In the brief filed by counsel the
celebrated case of Guiteau, for the killing
of President Garfield, was referred to as
similar case. The Chief Judge, i'll his
opinion. after reviewing the memorable
tragedy, says: THE contention there was
on the part of the prisoner, that the
murder was committed only partly with
in the District of Columbia and partly
within the State of New Jersey, and,
therefore, there was no jurisdiction in
the court in The District of Colum bia to
try and convict the prisoner for his
crime. But this contention was over
ruled. 1t was first considered and over
ruled in the Criminal Court in very
learned aud able opinion by Mr.. Justice
Cox before whom the case was tried, and
after conviction tho case was taken to a
session in geccc--"l tor, Of the S"rrIlaIne
Court Of the District, where the trial
court was fully reviewed and the con-
clusion of Mr.. Justice Cox concurred in
though for reasons somewhat variant
from those employed by the trial judge.
In the opinion of Judge Cox the common
law authorities sustained the jurisdiction
but he was further of opinion that the
statue OF George 2, Oh. 81, was in force
in Mary land at the date of the oession of
the District by this State, aud conse-
quently was still in force in the District
and that that statue fully applied to the
case.
And while the court OF review sitting,
in general term, agreed in the conclusion
arrived at by Judge Cox, and also in the
proposition that the common law was
sufficient for the case, it held that by the
terms OF the statute of the United States
applicable to the District of Columbia,
which provides that in all places or dis
tricts under the sole and exclusive juris-
diction of the United States, if party
shall commit the crime of murder, such
person, on being convicted, shall suffer
death, the party inflioting the mortal
wound in the District is guilty of
murder, though the death of the VICTIM
subsequently occur in consequence Of
the wound in any Of the States of the
Union; that in such case the crime of
murder becomes complete in the district
where the mortal wound was given in
the contemplation of the statute, irres-
pectivs of the place of the death. Thus
holding that the mortal stroke which
caused the death constituted the felony,
and that the place Of death was imma-
terial to the jurisdiction of the court to
try and convict the offender. But that
was not at all what occurred. After the
conviction an application was made to
the Supreme Court of the United States
for habeas corpus on the grounds that
the Criminal Court of the District of
Columbia had no jurisdiction OF the
offence, aud, therefore, the conviction
was void. But Justice Bradley, upon
consideration of the case, concurred with
the courts of the District of Columbia
in boiling that there was jurisdiction of
the offence and that the party had been
properly tried, and therefore dismissed
the petition. And thus ended that
memorable case.
"Botn upon reason and authority, t here
FORE" continued Judge Alvey, this court
is of the opinion that the court below
was entirely correct in overruling the
demurrer to each and all of the counts of
the indictment, and as there is no cause
assigned in support of the motion in
arrest of judgment that could be consid
cred on such motion, the court was also
correct in overruling that motion"
AS to the second question, involving a
supposed illegal separation of the jury,
the Court of Appeals says the lower court
committed ne error in overruling the
motion, at follows" adds the court
that the judgment below must be
affirmed"