Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-08-20
CRIMINAL EXPENSES.
y.sy MILLER DECISION VERY GENE
RALLY INEXPERIENCED.
....,,,,a,.s Can Try aud Decide Cases Of
ro,i, IarcenS-rhe saprenhe Cours
Has Net ovsrraied TtsslG


81
.L,cause trihlng cases OF petit larceny
iakan from the jurisdiction OF magis-
60. 90 aud sent on 10 the County aud
coronation courts for indictment and
e. hy iurs.
Following IA Tho clipping referred TO:
ohio state j. subjected annually 70 n
t.avy burdcn Ia the matter OF Giihlhai
.,rapses. SIMPLY because trlbing cases OF
-, larceny are taken from the lurisdic-
,r o! magistrates and police usdces ana
.1F a matter Tor investigation ~ the
',q,I iury under whose indictment the
.c,.sl must be tried bv r petit lurv. As
,r.rsecucucc our lalls have been crow led
.t prisoners, who are sometimes con-
80 for months before their cases are
....i by the courts, thus involving the
...r I'D enormous criminal expenses.
lr.tle cost Of grand lufies and prose
.., ATTORNEYS. Al the last session Of
49,. ,rqlsl Assembly 90 Clause 10 OF Ar
..1 af the Constitution. which gives
. right T. a speedy trial by an impair
.-rEf Vas added the amendment.
-. fbe General Assembly NAV bv law
,.... for The trial otherwise than by
...fa man accused Of criminal or
...r1t punishable by death or cOntne-
go, IN the peuitcutiaty.' II the next
...tly approve OF tins am sudmont. as
. .-1ntIcs. Will. the amen Uncut VIII
.
e.. .t.r Nv H'ch u VIII become part oil
r.r-ti,uU0n. and our people will be
e. from an immense burden
t...r.Yf newspaper articles % the same
.. ana 'bc knowledge that II Is the
.+.e. % the magistrate ana courts very
..t.Iy lu thC State 50 70 deal with these
'...F.,r cases OF petit larceny IS nay eN-
.... ~ pr--cutlug nv views OF the sub
S.. d. Tho columns Ot daily newspaper.
'fu 10 tLe date o. the dsciuou of the
,..t .f Appeals IN the Mary Miller case
,..rirI in ~, Virginia Reports. the prac-
e. tr rrcprdauco with the law was that
g.. Illustrates decided the question OF
rt 10 cases Of petit larceny, with the
800 ut appeal hy tho convict 10 the
IT, lu. l. Aastccn generally supposed
,....r Appellate Cuurt held in that case
,.atsLf statute confirming tbs luriedlc-
... ..slltrufas was unconstitutional.
,..., yo1. an bCnc5 the change ia the
,-..rr.. Now the tenor and eject OF tins
'....r la- been strangely and very gen
Cay mIsIcYs'utei.
uors Nor DECIDE.
7, doe. not decide, cr.g 1y medication,
g.. f.. r,.rat.- have no constitutional
authority 90 try cases OF petit larceny.
Ms question was not 'H d'y shape before
A.. ..art. and poo 0lus oH If any sof' Is
raf. m tic couT's opinion 20 cases Of
,.' ..rc.uv IGe words nowhere occur
,,t.. record % the case. nos IS there any
s.g.... malc % that offence. And 50 tar
l.. Ir4n.else extends i) court IN Var
,... lr..poI Or otherwise, has ever held
...'r - be unconstitutional as to
f..., 90 tttil larceny. On tho CONTRARY,
a.. l-..' question has been raised, ar
,..I ..l determined by the Court OF APP
l...' .rf.f..- IN f.ur several cIse3-tbrc9
i.t...I court and ono before the pres
or Court and each time the statute was
I.l 60 tp constitutional. This state
l.ut q tlr m.tt.r, winch IS undoubtedly
rfr..t. ought To s,tlle the question OF
SUMS. .'..u. without any further inquiry,
i.'I,...U. Do a- II las pren enormously
.... .l That tho decision IN the Mary
,f..rgl-. I- 20 conflict with previous de-
t-.l-. .rl changed the law, u Is well 10
..,.. that case more particularly.
Salr-r LARCENY INVOLVED.
N.-. q. ar wls tired a11 convicted by
eJ..'r. 10 NE Peace for tine offence Of
l...r-a hvly-h0use. The validity Of
f.lf fl.l ..i convection was tho only
QUESTION l--.ra the court, and the only
,.,.. u-.. .nleI 90 he decided. As be-
e.. stated. there was 10 occasion 20 a.
li p. c.-- q petit larceny. and no
r..t.ui .is 81 such cases anywhere
81 ...r'r OPINION. On the contrary,
,a".. Lows Who delivered the opinion is
c..t.I l.I clItlous IN his language 10
lrtl.i r.tt.c tie decision TO tho par
OCULAR D.-. f.en M hand; and tbsre IS not
o.. --.'.s. warrant for stretching tbs
decision. r1lUo. cases oi w1Olly dhor-
90 C.,rl.t.r, Dot even remotely alluded
Co.. t.-...r'. ami that, too, IN the teeth
Of Ir.,'.l- decisions of the sane court.
t...- 'v..s. 'a-fpns from the opinion,
rt discriminating words italicized,
r THAT the Judge who delivered
t.a tl',ou D., JOB 10 WISE responsible for
I 1T - ]. HTfs lga
Teen b.. .y gwen 10 It.
4ctsE IIKr The PBrsrNT.
hff.r -srIr the case the oplnlOn starts
a., ty -.'u.. Ia ~ cOntcuded that sec
SD .. TIE Code. Is 80 FAR - IT GIvEs
!r.. tH . t41cs - he p-dre 10 Try
ol.r f.r .rE Present, is void &c, &c.
u ot- f.t even Cou'ented that the
tn'.'. w.-N..i fox any and all purposes
'-.-'. .. 4tl al cases en- br8ced by u,
t.' n... "ln SD far Is il ~ refers % "A
c..~4.. OIL. present. Again, the court
s.. F. there. then, such incomp@t-
'.T .t'.,. tire act IN question that j.,
t.t tl' &c the COic--S0 ar as n reGes
rra,H and the Constitu-
All finally. to indicate bevond posi-
Bile. .. 'l-r.I .fructiuu. that the court
.t..' lt.-l q hold the sta ute uncoD-
'' 'a. as % any class Of offences other
%. o.. specific one before II, the Judge
c..s BE-, validity ~ to ri Ott'r cIses
i'.. V.Nr language: " Il must be
however, Notwithstanding the
Poo. ..-H.to of the Constitution. that
i..' .,. many petit offences againat sta
i-'.' O. Iu. clai ordinances such rs
F...i.t -tf'..irs. drum sonue s. vaCrancy,
90. r.v r1. ,r .fu' .ers which are triable
..a' urv.' etc.
Now. s.-..gIt is bat fair TO the court, in
Nr' .' tH- wrl'-.uT1C1 opinion, 10 CON
'.-. D.; harmony with It's own pTeyiously-
tl'. $50 lee, IONS. that the vast variety
.'..' I.lt offences Which NAV be
YES '' mag tgato include the offence
o. p".t 1-rrlr.
IL ANYTHING more wero needed 20 prove
t-.f t'+ court IA ITS decision Of thiS cause
A.t l't t.- remotest inteltion II over
l-...- i.H DECISIONS IA the pctit-larceny
t'' d, found ~ the fact that not one IT
"-e alluded 10 IN the opinion of
'' nor IL the dissenting opinion OF
V--. i-l;
~ 40 WISE INVOLVED.
''.c-- lt was considered on all sides
'l ' .ne that the question OF maglste-
'alot'a IN petit larceny cases was
N--' involved, and II was as foreign
vow. case lC hand as citation Of eject
e. would have been. In an adj
N. 'r % bB dissenting OPINION. SUBJ
' 10y ll-t Lacy WurD tAe casa WAS
ned on the rtheariue, be does
l'' the pet!t-iarceuv eases, but the
-'F vi mo court. 0dhcriug TO Their
u.Liou. make no alluslon to them.
r.. can tHc c ourt. ~ common courte-
. common justice. be chargeahle
WIZ. rEu1 It's deliberate decisions
'l been standing for years. and
n1 allusion 10 tlose decisions ia
y-preparcd opinion Iresaect-
' "t' that the impression which
- led regarding tho Miller case,
Sect which has been given 10 II,
Only erroneous and unwarrauted,
0.' tre Court OF Appeals an injustice.
I"ll add that. preferrlng 10 follow the
t- as u Is written and pronounced
''l ~ 'be highest court time and again.
- l.w the practice IA Lynehburg TO
iu peilt-larceny cases exactly az
wa Done tei0fe the Miller case was de-
Dad TINS will continue 10 be done
1.A Tie Court Of Appeals which hos ex-
N held that proceeding 10 be valid
a-l n,ttutionsl shall expressly hold 10
.-' ruafy. Up 20 the present time the
'' las never decided. said. nor intl-
e-~'ol 44ything 20 the contrary.
louIs respectfully,
j. BiSGLFToN DIoGs.