The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-12-10
A JUST VERDICT THE AIM.
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE APPEAL IN THE DR. LEE CASE.


 No Life Shall Twice Do Put in Jeopardy for the Same Offence.
 A great deal of interest is aroused among the legal profession throughout the United States over the decision of the supreme court of Connecticut in granting an appeal of the state for new trial of pr. J. Edward Lee, who was acquitted by a jury of having caused the death of Mrs. Isabella Miller of this city by an unlawful operation. The reasons of the court are set forth by Judge Hamersley. It was a general impression among lawyers that a mans life could not be placed q second time in jeopardy for the same crime, but the court sets forth that where justice and equity are involved the old common law on the subject Is to give way. The opinion of the court as set forth by Judge Hamersley sand unanimously conourred in by the other four justices
  are considered-the common law re- garding retrial and the refusal of the judge to admit an important question addressed to one of the states wit nesses, Prof. M. c. White of the Yale medical school, medical examiner for this town and who performed an au- topsy on the body of Mrs. Miller. An abstract of the opinion of the court Is as follows:
 The defendant makes preliminary claim that the state has, under our law, no right to appeal to this court when the accused has been acquitted by a jury, and bases that claim upon two proposition; 1. A law authorizing pro- ceedure for the correction of errors in instructions to the jury. or in the ad- mission and exclusion of evidence made by the court in a criminal trial and fol- lowed by the acquittal of the accused, is a. violation of that Fundamental prin- ciple of the common law, "No person shall be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy" 2. Section 1887 of the general statutes does not in express terms authorize an appeal when the accused has been tried and acquitted by the jury.
 If questions once tried and deter mined could be again agitated at the option of the parties, one main ob- ject of any administration of justice would be defeated. The functions of courts is to settle controversies accord ing to law. The object of settlement is secured by the principle of finality of judgments. The end Is not reached, the case is not finished until both the facts and the law applicable to the facts is finally determined The principle of f1nality Is essential but not more es- sential than the principle of justice.a
 A final settlement is not more vital than a right settlement.
 This distinction has been lost sight of in some cases which discuss the appli- cation of common law rules or statutory provisions to the correction of errors in criminal causes, and, owing to the confusion of principle with practice, theory seems to have at times prevailed
  crime is sort of invasion of natural right, and that a person acquitted of crime should be exempt from establish ed rules of law binding on all other cit izens, and, therefore, a procedure which proves incompetent to the correct ap- plication of legal principles in crimi- nal trials can be changed like any other rule of practice, when the change may tend to protect the accused from unjust punishment,bu becomes fundamental principle of jurisprudence that can- not be altered when the change may tend to secure his just punishment.
 It needs no argument to dispel such an illusion, or to demonstrate that the natural rights of the individual, as we'll as the interests of public order, are best served, and the essential principles of Jurisprudence are most accurately followed when the proceedings in criminal prosecution include such pro- lection against injustice that the final disposition of the cause will not only settle the controversy, ,but settle it in accordance with law. Judicious legis- lation for securing a full, fair and legal trial of each criminal cause is not in derogation, but in protection of in- dividual right. and is in full accord with the principle that no man shall twice be put in. jeopardy for the same offense.
 The maxim is based on the truth that judicial proceeding lawfully car ried on to it's conclusion by final iude- ment, and is not based on a theory that a person accused of crime has anv natural right of exemption from those regulations of judicial proceeding which the state deems necessary to make sure that the conduct and final result of that proceeding shall be fin accordance with law. And so the nut- ting in jeopardy means a jeopardy which is real and has continued throup.h every stage of one prosecution as fixad by existing laws relative to procedure while such prosecution remains unde. termined the one jeopardy has not been exhausted.
 After citing a number of cases p,v- ing reasons why retrials may he or- dered, the supreme court continues as follows:
 The great significance of theses cases lies in their illustration of the inherent power and duty of the court to see that f1fe triaA fss cond dlhnt,n.d do,r,r,.7s,...F4.4, .