Evening journal., 1893-02-15


---------------- ------------------
nent Of the truth in its relations TO the
transactions Of men, and they can only
do so fairly and impartially when all
persons having knowledge of the transac-
tion inquired of are brought or allowed
20 come before them for examination
without let or hindrance from anyone. lt
interested witnesses are TO be kept away
by intimidation, persuasion or bribery
then our courts cannot perform their
high functions and the powers intrusted
TO them by the people will fall from
their nerveless grasp. They will no
longer preserve either their own self
respect or the respect Of the community.
DissuadIng Witness Is am Offenso.
Accordingly as it is stated in Russell Ton
Crimes, Vel. /, page 264: Gan who en-.
deavor to stihe truth and prevent the
one execution of justice are highly pun
ishable; and therefore the dissuading or
endeavoripg to dissuade a witness from
giving evidence against person indicted
is an otfense at common law, although
the persuasion should not succeed.
And IL has been held by our own court
in the case Of State vs.. Early, Harring-
ton, 562, that the party who spirits away
a Witness and thus obstructs the court
Of justice, is equally guilty whether the
evidence of the witness would be mate
rial or not.
Nor do we think that this offense can
only be committed where the witness has
been legally summoned or is at the time
bound by recognizancs to appear. The
offense is committed not against the
process Of the courts but against the
sole object and purpose Of their existence
and the reason Of their being, which as
we lid before is the ascertainment of the
truth; and It is indictable because it is
an attempt to stifle the truth and not
because it is contempt of any process Of
the courts.
other Relations Render it Obnoxious.
We believe that the witness may have
other relations to case than those Of
being actually summoned or recognized
which will render his being spirited
away obnoxious to the law. II
would. TO our minds, be a monstrous
doctrine that party might be recog
nized to appear before a Grand Jury
might actually appear and give evidence
as the most material witness in the case
and then because the case was con-
tinued without respiting his rocogni-
zance-might with impunity be spirited
away and bribed TO absent himself If 1t
could be done before a subpoena was ac-
tually issued and served, and the party
who bribed him 60 unpunished of justice
because he had cunningly anticipated
the officers Of the law by few days or a
few hours even.
Nor are we without authority for this
-. e. GN.A
Vermont, 66-says Redheld, Justice, in
that case:
Grossly Criminal TO Absent Himself
'The witness having once been i'm
proved before the Justice and recognized
for his appearance to testify on the final
trial, cannot be presumed 10 be in doubt.
whether his testimony would be required
on the final trial Knowing this, it
would be grossly criminal in him cor
ruptly to absent himself from the State
or keep secreted, or in any other way
avoid being summoned as a witness,
whether his recognizance was or was not
still in force The question here is not
whether the witness has been guilty of a
contempt in disobeying the process of the
court but whether there has been cor
rupt attempt to obstruct the due course
Of public justice by 'spiriting
away or preventing the attendance
of a witness. If the person induced to
absent himself knew Of his being a wit
ness and was induced TO absent himself
the oifense was complete in him. II the
respondent knew of his being a witness
and about to be compelled in due course
Of law to attend the trial, and endeav-
ored TO dissuade and hinder him there
from in the language Of the indictment,
his oifense is complete In this case
knowledge is carried home to both II
will not do for moment to admit that
the respondent might anticipate the ofi
GERS Of justice, and secrete, bribe or in
timidate state witnesses from attending
the trial Of public prosecutions and not be
liable for any act done, until a subpoena
had been legally served upon the wit
ness This view will leave untouched
the most corrupting field for cffenses Of
this character.
The learned counsel SAYS that this
case does not eXpound the law properly
but we have been unable TO find a single
case which impeaches or conflicts with it
in the slightest degree. II is published in
thirty American decisions, fifty IL 1.
cited by Bishop in his work fon Crimina
Law, and Wharton in his work OF
Criminal Law, volume II, section 2.2S7,
in giving illustrations of distractions e
public justice. says:
''And to dissuade a witness from at
tending the trial Of a cause even though
such witness had not been served with a
subpoena, is indictable" and he give.
this case as his authority It is cited a.
the law in a note to Chittys Crimina
Law and in a note TO Russell on Crimes
It is cited, without a word of explana
ton or dissent in both the cases cited by
the learned counsel-that Is il
Commonwealth VS.. Reynolds, IA Gray
81, and in Maine VS. Ames, O. Maine
And when the case of Commonwealth VS.
Reynolds is published in American De
cisions, Vol "a, page 665, the learne,
| aditnr riras the NarmnnL case as stntin.