The record-union., 1893-07-22
Afternoon Session.

Afternoon Session.
When the court reconvened in the after
noon, Judge Catlin occupied seat on the
bench with Judge Prewett.
Mr.. Hart then arose and sprung the
motion for dismissal which he promised
several days ago. He prefaced his motion
with the remark that he would be salts
ned to try the case before the court and
jury, were it not for the fact that he be-
leved that it would result in a void judg-
ment, in a needless expense to the
county, and, in short, farce. He then
moved for dismissal of the case in the
following language: 1.-THE defendant
moves 10 dismiss this action on the ground
that this court has no Jurisdiction of the
cause, because, first, the alleged crime
is not alleged to have been committed
IN the county of Sacramento, nor
Is there any proof tending TO show that
SAID, or any, crime was committed in the
county of Sacramento. Second, that the
defendant was not apprehended in the
said county of Sacramento. Third, thar
Section 7o5 of the Penal Code, in so far as
II attempts to authorize the prosecution
of the defendant, charged with bigamy,
IN any county other than the county in
which the said bigamy was committed,
ana which attempts to confer jurisdiction
over the said crime of bigamy outside of
the county in which said crime is alleged
to have been committed, and in any
county in which the defendant is appre-
hended, is in violation of Section 7,
Article l., of the Constitution of the State"
Mr.. Hart then went over the history of
Jetterls' arrest in Alameda County, and
SAID that the evidence of the prosecution
related to marriage supposed TO have
taken place in San Francisco. He then
read the law on bigamy, showing that it
was the act of marriage TO a second wife
while the bonds Of wedlOck existed be-
tween the person charged and his first
wife that constituted the crime. The law
also provided, he said, that where per-
son IS arrested in one county for crime
committed in another county, jurisdic-
ton rested in either county. But in the
case of Jetleris, he said, it had been
clearly shown that the defendant was not
apprehended in Sacramento County, but
in Alameda County instead. If the
prosecution, he declared, could select any
county it chose to try person charged
with crime, designing man could take
the unfortunate prisoner among his enc
mics and get him convicted by preju-
diced jury. Such proceeding, he said,
was against the Constitution OF the State
OF California. Jetferis had been appre-
hended in Oakland,
BROUGHT BY FORCE
To Sacramento and kept in dungeon
until the Grand Jury could indict him
forcing the jurisdiction of the county
upon the prisoner, he declared. The
courts had time and again, he continued,
put their stamp of disapproval upon
such proceedings, and had characterized
them as fraudulent service.
The attorney pictured dramatically the
dragging" of a person from his bed,
and from the bosom OF his family and
from his home, taken to prison, locked
up and detained there until he could be
transported to another county-to an
other jurisdiction for trial in another
community. Every man accused of
crime has a constitutional right to be
tried in his own county. The law, said
MIR. Hart, did not permit the decoying of
a person from one jurisdiction to an
other, nor TO serve processes upon a
drunken man.
Mr.. Hart referred to the taking of JEFF
ferris by Detectives True and Burke as a
criminal act, and said they ought to be
punished for it. He then cited a number
of authorities in support OF his motion.
The attorney argued that the indict-
ment could not be found in any other
county than that in which the crime is
claimed to have been committed. He
read two long decisions which he claimed
covered the point-one from the Missouri
Reports, in a bigamy case, and the other
from the California Reports, in 2 murder
y
determine for us that we shall be tried for
alleged otfenses outside of the counties
where it is charged the offense was COM
United, away from our witnesses and
from where we are apprehended. He
held, therefore, that Jetieris, having been
arrested in Oakland and brought up here
for indictment, was not apprehended in
this county, and even if he had been, he
could not be tried in this county for an
offense committed in San Francisco.
MIR. JONES REPLIES.
Charles 7. Jones, in his answering
argument, stated that when Jetferis was
arrested he was taken into custody by
Oakland officers and turned over to the
Sacramento officers. There was no con-
cealment in the matter. If he was not
legally arrested in Oakland, it made no
difference. The warrant was served on
him after his arrival here. The Grand
Jury was in session at the time, and, in
vestigating his case, found an indictment
against him tor bigamy as well as murder.
He argued that they had perfect right to
do so, and that General Harris construc-
ton of what constitutes an apprehension
was entirely too narrow, and he did not
think that any court would sustain it. He
quoted the definitions for apprehension
given by Bouvier's and Sweets Law
Dictionaries, and cited an English case
covering the point. In California said
Mr.. Jones, the indictment must be found
in the county where the offense is COM
mitted or in the county where the appre-
hension was made.
Attorney Jones quoted from the old
English common law and showed that in
the reign of George ". it was found nee
essary to change the common law, which
said that charge of bigamy could only
be tried where it was committed, and en-
act a statute allowing it to De tried wher-
ever the parties are apprehended, it being
found that under the common law a man
could commit bigamy in France and
bring his bigamous wife to England and
live with her with impunity.
Mr.. Hart then took another turn and
contended that before the Grand Jury
commenced to investigate the charge OF
bigamy the law required that Jetferis
should have been apprehended on the
charge. This, he claimed was not done,
and the warrant for the arrest of Jefferis
on the bigany charge was not issued till
after the Indictment was found.
The court took the matter under ad-
visement and announced that it would
render its decision at 1915 this morning.
KAVANAUGH OUT ON BAIL
His Wife Threatened With Blood
Poisoning From Her Wounds.
Mrs. W. J. Kavanaugh, who was so
severely injured by her husband with a