The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-04-22
VALLEY COUNTY TRIES It.
Attorney General Haskell Gives His
Opinion on . Very lmpor-.
tant Question.
The Crime Is Against the State
and Not One LOCAL.
ity Of It.
Courts in New Couuties Have Jnriadic-
tlon Of OfYenses Committed Before
the Division Took Place

The opinion Of Attorney General Haskell
~ to the trial Of cases in the newly created
counties. has already been published In
brief. The entire question was one OF CON
siderable importance, AZ cases have already
resented themselves in some OF the new
counties. The matter was brought to tho
attention OF the attorney general by John
j. Kerr. county attorney Of Valley county,
who wrote ON March 20. presenting the fol-
lowing hypothetical case: IL commits
crime OF larceny ~ Glasgow. Feb. 2. On
March % suppose Justice OF tho peace IN
Valley county takes complaint about IL
crime and issues warrant. When L comes
into court he objects to jurisdiction OF any
Valley county court, claiming under Sec. ~
of criminal practice act that the ~otfense, II
committed at all, was committed in an
other county, to-wit, the county Of Daw-
son, of which Glasgow was At that
time q part. Would tho Justice
of the peace and district court
of Valley county have jurisdiction OF de-
PENDANT to punish for that crimef Or
would the supreme SQUIRT let him 60 free II
he won't to it with such a showing?' Sub.
sequently County Attorney Kerr wrote that
n C060 SuCu u Ao pIchVAt0A % . AStOVNS
MS had actually arisen.
Tho attorney general, In his opinion,
quotes section 80 of the criminal practice
act, which says: "Offenses committed
against the laws Of this territory shall be
tried In the county in which the offense 10
committed; or in the county to which the
same 10 attached for judicial purposes. ex-
cept as other wise provided by law"
"Crimes.' says the attorney general, ARE
committed against the peace of the state
and not against the peace of any particular
county in the state. Territorial limits are
assigned for the jurisdiction of particular
courts to facilitate the dispatch Of
judicial business and for tho safety
and convenience of the citizens,
When q new county has been
ing tern,s of the district court therein, such
court will take coRnizance Of all crimes
and offenses committed within the terrific
rial limits of such new county. which are
not then pending in or returnable to other
courts, which fall within it's general juria-
diction, whether such o~ffenses were COM
mitted before or after the act of incorpora-
ton"
Numerous authorities are quoted to sus-
tain this view of the case, to the effect that
by the common Law osimes are local, to be
prosecuted in the county OF their commits
sion; and that even when a county il d.
vided. a criminal act done before the d.
vision is to be prosecuted in the new county
in tho limits of which the ofcnse was done.
In conclusion the attorney-general saws;
''Although the otfense was committed
within that part of Dawson county now in
Guided in Valley county, the same must lie
tried in Valley county. and tho district court
has full and absolute jurisdiction to try the
oase." In filing an nation in u Grim
inal oase of tue kind the attorney general
advises the county attorney to set ont that
the accused, 'late of the town of Glasgow.
in the county OF Valley, on the - day OF
- 1898; the said town of Glasgow then be-
ing in the county OF Dawson and now being
IN the county of Valley aforesaid and with
in the jurisdiction Of this court; felon-
iously." etc.. and thereby to charge the
offense in the information as having boon
committed in the new county, including
the territory upon which 1t was committed.