The evening world., 1894-02-26

Though as to the more important questions In
volved in this application expressed my Opinion
the correctness and confd nee with which the OBJ
%jections to the Judgment against the defendant
were urged by the able counsel appearing on his
behalf have led me to re-examine the views !
then expressed.
ant not having been a registry onicer was not
legally competent to commit the crime. and there
90 aGrs IN I fsc. at hO s,l pc s sDeS'f hns n s%ef' be een the IsW'
The law recognizes no difference between the
ofense OF the principal In te hrst degree and
And so immaterial was the distinction in prac-
tice that the indictment might charge the guilt
In the other degree: yet there was no variance.
and a conviction could be properly had. -.
The difference between accessory and principal
did not lie in the physical or legal competency
OF the defendant TO commit the act in person.
but in the fact OF his presence or absence at the
Such was the rule at con mon law.
II the defendant: therefore, were actually pres,
have been convicted OF the crime itself. even be-
fore the Code. BY section 20 OF the Penal Code
and principals is abolished, and all are made
principals.
case OF shannon. in Michigan. the question there
discussed related not to the liability OF the de-
PENDANT to punishment. but as, to he form OF The
Indictment. No such question can arise In this
case, for the Indictment does not charge the de-
PENDANT with having committed the crime IN per
son. but with having procured it's commission by
S'"''', 49,
competent to commit II. =,
The second objection is that the defendant ronld
only he convicted OF a misdemeanor under section
Il ib), Penal Code. OF having lost DESTROYED or
mutilated the registry list or copies. and not OF
any registry onicer who wllfuily violates any pro-
vision OF the law shall he subject to Imprisonment
for not less than two nor more than ten years.
II is apparent that the prior subdivision appiles
to oil persons generally. and that the latter applies
to acts committed by the registry Officers. The
difference in punishinent Is great but there Is
no inconsistency between tho provisions.
The moral delinquency Of the at done ny IN"
done by another person. and. what is moro 70 the
point. the danger OF loss or destruction ~ inc
registry lists BY the officers night he considered
,s lar greater than their destruction Icy outside
persons. and therefore more to be guarded against
by severity Of punishment.
Nor does II necessarily work an unjust severity
to this defendant. 1t may well be said VA, ne
could not Of his own sole act have o'cnnpu aSnc
ing or corrup;ing the oficials In whose charge
the lists were.
A third objection is that several onenses are
charged in the indictment that is a separate viola
ton. even by each Of the three inspectors, The
Indictment on its face, charges a single iolnt
orense on tho part OF all three, and this objection
cannot be sustained unless II can he estanlshed
that ms a matter Of law the onenses OF The IN,
spectors must be several. despite any allegation
in tho Indictment to the contrary. While each
inspector IN to retain a list or copy. the duty OF
the inspectors IL not wholly several, me COPY ,s
are TO be kept accessible 10 the public. certainly
as to the posted copy, at least inc au,y tSs.n as
mucn on " = u W l'Hl'N''F 500 -
that II existed to some extent at least as 70 all
the copies.
made upon the charge of the Court. II is sum,
Gent to say that the charge was so satisfactory
to the defendant that at its close his counsel WIN
drew all objections 10 II. The. charge was as ab-
solutely Just and fair 10 N" defendant as can he
Imagined, and 1t does not II" in his mouth to nov
complain OF possible Inaccuracies, which would
have been remedied had the attention OF the Court
been called to them.
nut IL is not necessary to rest upon this prin-
oInIa Mana pf the TTitiCiEms are MCll tOlnltls
The first, that the Court charged the iurE, as to
what certain evidence u believed ,enaea 20
It's charge expressly Withdrawing this statement
and leaving the Jury TO determine what inference
Was TO be drawn from the evidence,
The second that the Court read only part Of the
section Of the statute 10 the Jury, did not harm
il would only have recited another ground, neg.
lect, upon which the defendant could have ostn
convicted
fraud In the registry as q motive Tor the conceal,
ment Of the list, can be determined only by a re
view OF the whole case, TO see whether there was
any evidence on the subject, u there was such
evidence. the charge was correct and II was not
necessary or proper to slleRe such fraud IN the
charged, but merely evidence Of It's commission
While undoubtedly II cannot he shown that ~"
defendant committed one crime disconnected WIN
the subject matter Of the charge on TRIAL from
which 10 argue that he would comm. the on'nso
that fairly tend 10 establish the act Tor which
III. defendant Is now on trial cannot he excluded
because they also tend TO show another crime b.
the defendant,
Thus. " a person selves property and ou rlr.
suit killed his pursuer The theft would he com
petent evidence On the charge ot murder and
the murder competent evidence on the trial for
Larceny,
There now remains 10 lie considered the alleged
errors in the admission Of evidence. Th'se may
he grouped In several Glasses. The first class
relates 10 the transactions Of the Saturday might
! previous to election. when copyiSts sent TO copy
the liAis were arrested and confined In JAN
This testimony was clearly ompetent. The lists
uniskE have bNeu aa Rnectually concealed ITNm the
| public and copying them be prevented BY personal