The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1892-08-02
KING Mist HANG.

Nashville, decided yesterday on the
habess corpus writ in the II. Clay
King murder case. The decision not
only carries with it the life OF man.
and likes upon . murderer the just
penalty Of the law, but IS Important
for other reasons.
Il comes at = time when the COM
mon people are fast losing confidence
in the Courts. It comes 1T = time
when the general feeling Is that .
man of wealth and influence may
commit almost any crime, and yet "
some hook or crook-the laws delay,
the sharp practice Of lawyers or the
bribery of juriss-will escape punish
ment. It comes 1t y time when .
precedent was needed to knock out
the growing tendencies for techni-
calitiss. 1t will serve, we hope, to
relegate the technical lawyer and
sharp practitioner, and to give to
the public more confidence N the
common sense Of the courts.
Our readers all understand that
Col. King, an able lawyer himself
killed brother lawyer in Memphis,
deliberately aud in cold blood. He
had a fair aud impartial trial by
Jury aud was convicted and sentenced
to be hung. He Appealed TO the
Supreme Court Of Tennessee, and the
verdict OF the jury was sustained.
His lawyers then asked for writ OF
habeas corpus and brought the case
before the Federal Court.
They claimed that two jurors were
incompetent, because of having
formed and expressed opinions. The
Federal Judge decided that he had
nothing to do with the question, the
State courts having decided it.
They raised aDOther point, which
was mainly relied upon. This was
purely q technical move to defeat
Justice, and Judge Jackson handles
1t in the following able manner:
"The remaining and principal ground
relied on ia support of the present APP
plIcatiOaa is, that while the jury had the
| Detitioner's case under consideration
| they left the State ofTennessee, crossed
the Mississippi river into the State OF
Arkansas without his consent, aud
went from point to point in the latter
State, beyond and out OF the Jurlsulc-
| ton OF tho court in which the case was
pending, whereby, il is alleged, that
| such jury lost its official character ana
ceased to be jury III said cause pend
ing ia the Criminal Court OF Sheloy
County, and thus dissolved their rela-
tions with said court, and after so ceas-
| ing to be Jury, found verdict, which
they had no authority to do, and the
same is q nullity. How did this tenn
porary absence of the jury from the
| State so dissolve or terminate its official
| character as to render its verdict void
The trip did not destroy tho Tennessee
| citizenship of the jurors, nor even sus-
pend such citizenship. 1t did not touch
or affect I'm any way their qualification
as Jurors. 1t temporarily suspended
the trial courts personal Jurisdiction
over them. 1t also temporarily sus-
pended the legal control OF the officers
in whose charge they were placed while
the jury WAS beyond the States Dorder
but the act of going beyond the terri
torial boundary of the State in no way
impaired, destroyed or Affected the
Jurisdiction OF the Criminal Court oi
Shelby County over either the person
of the accused or the otfense with which
he was charged. When the jury re-
turned within the limits OF the State
authority and control OF the court was
then re-attached; so did that OF the
officers OF the court having them IL
charge How can such temporary 8D-
sence from the State, any more thar
any other unlawful dispersion OF the
iury which would place them tor the
time beyond or out OF the control of the
court aud its officers, terminate thell
official character or dissolve their rela
ton to the court? 1t is not perceived
upon what sound principle such propo
sition can be- maintained. The act o
crossing the Mississippi river and go
ing to q locality where the officers II
charge of the jury had no legal alI
thority or control over Ihem may
in contemplation of law, have beer
an unlawful dispersion or separation
and constituted such misconduct a
called for explanation on the part OF tn
State to show that ii was attended Wit
no prejudice to the accused. II appear
] from tue record that such explanation
was Riven by showing that while cross
ing tie river and while on the Arkansa
shore the jury remained together ant
J apart from all other persons, and tina
during the time they were beyond tn
States border they had or held no con
= yersation or communication with othe
! parties. With the Sutficiency or INSULT
cheney of such explanation this cour
? has, of course, nothing to do on tn
, present application. If the jury ha
zone into the postoffic building at Men
phis, or upon the lot on which tina
: building stands, they would haV
. equally passed beyond the territor1s
| jurisdiction OF the SIaCe Ol 1eIlneSSe
Q and of the Criminal Court of Shelb
County. The purpose for which the
might have entered the GoNernmeI
: building or upon the parcel OF groun
[ on which that building stands woul
. have been wholly immaterlal, for Will
there they would have been upon teri
3 tory as much beyond the territoris
O limits and jurisdiction of the State
Tennessee as the District of CoIumbl
}, or the Arkansas shores of the Missi
sippi river, it being well settled thu
over that building and the plat
I, ground OH which it stands the Unite
States has exclusive jurisdictiOn-s
exclusive that the State cannot TAX
cognizance of any Otfense committe
therein or thereon, nor send her Officer
,, there either to execute process or max
70 arrest. Would the courts of the coun r
entertain for a moment the propositio
= that jury having under considerable
q a criminal case would cease to be a Law
tut jury or be dissolved as such and los
its official character and its relations