The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-08-04
,r,,xa JUDICIAL DECISION.

..-.pr,YNo JUDICIAL DECISION.
so,no ons has sent us a marked copy OF
.ho pr;.,oI Courier. which contains in full
Tho oninion of Judge Rhea, Judge OF the
County Court of Washington County, SET
,,nr oside verdict finding J. X. JORDAN
entity Of murder in the second degree anu
6,inc his punishment at confinement 10 'ne
,ni,ortiorv for twelve years. The news
naper reporter states also that the 'uus0
anasbod The indictment and discharged the
nrisoner and II may be inferred from the
on,,ion that Re did 80. though that Is not
s,a.ed in the opinion. We take from tho
Judges opinion a statement OF the leau'nS
facts Of the case. He says
I'VE find a man killed by pistol shos;
M about 2 o'clock in the night, ID the nan
of his wife's home. with no arms upon LIS
person. we find by the prisoner own ov W.
fession that he fred the fatal shot' NO
6nd tbe Commonwealth claiming 10
have established a motive for the crime oy
reason of Illicit relations between the Wilo
~ the deceased and the defendant. we
End the defendant around on that night
With a deadly weapon. Some time pre-
vious. in explaining why he had the SANE Il IA
his possession. be stated that the oeceHseo
was Jealous OF him, and that II deceaseu ~
W., W. 800 With him inc would shoot him,
Ga ooein declared that il deceased inter-
tered with him he would shoot his ID
heart out.
The Judge. therefore, oertifies to US that
these facts were proved before the jury. and
the Jury found the accused guilty OF murder
in the second degree, fixing his punishment
at twelve years in the penitentiary. Never
theless the Judge set the verdict aside and
according 10 the newspaper reporter, quash-
ed the indictment and discharged the pris-
oner from all responsibility, so far as he was
able 10 do so. The average reader will ma
turally wish to know by what process OF
reasoning the Judge reached bis conclusion
and we will give it.
He says the prisoner and Mrs Adams.
wife of tho deceased. we're the only eye
witnesses Of the homicide, and that II their
testimony IS rejected we are absolutely with
out evidence concerning tho facts Of the
killing. except the confession Of the prisoner
that he fred the fatal shot. Now says the
Judge, if the jury believed the prisoner and
Mrs. Adams they would of course have
found the prisoner guilty of murder in the
first degree. Finding him guilty Of murder
in the second degree only proves conoiu'
sively that they did not believe the testi-
mony of these two, and as the relations be-
tween the prisoner and Mrs. Adams had
been for long time before the killing. and
ID ALot IL
jury determined TO punish the prisoner Tor
those improper relations, which was not the
offence for which he was tried.
The decision is palpably wrong. 1t is OBJ
vious the Judge wholly transcribed his
authority and usurped the province of the
jury. il belonged to the jury to decline to
find the prisoner guilty Of murder in the
first degree if they chose and to find him
guilty of murder in the second degree only,
| if they saw fit and it was not part OF the
Judges province to negative their finding
and declare that they we're really Furnishing
the prisoner for some other crime.
We are constrained 10 hope that the re-
porter has made a mistake in saying the
Judge quashed the indictment and dis
charged the prisoner. He had no right TO
do this. The utmost that we can suppose
him 10 have done was to have released the
prisoner upon his own reoognizance. leay-
ing the indictment standing before the
court, in which event the case would come
ON for another trial at the next term of the
court But if he really Quashed the indict-
ment. then a new indictment should be at
once found against the accused and be
should be at once Tearrested and tried
again, but it would be better, in view Of the
opinion Of the court, to secure the services
Of another Judge for the next trial.