Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-03
Mr.. BIRNEY SUSTAINED
Statue Of Limitation Doesn't Apply in
Howgate Case
Judge McCOmas Holds He Was n
Fugitive From Justice and Can
BE Reindictcd,

After The Stars report Of the Howgate
case closed yesterday afternoon, MIR. A. S.
Worthington concluded his argument in
support of the defendants contention that
the statute of limitations barred the three
indictments recently returned against
Capt. Howgate. The hearing on that qucs-
ton was resumed at IL o'clock this morn
ing, when Mr.. Jere NJ. Wilson addressed
Judge McComas in support of the defen-
dant's immunity from indictment now.
Mr.. Wilson called Judge McComas' at
tention to the remarkable fact that, while
the law had been in operation for one
hundred and five years, the question at
issue was now raised for the first time.
The legal meaning Of the term fleeing
from Justice was first discussed by Mr..
Wilson, and he argued that the new in
.dictments were fatally defective because,
in alleging that Capt. Howgate had fed
from justice, the allegations failed to suf-
f1ciently set out such alleged flight as to
not fight from justice had actually oc-
CURED. In ether words, said Mr.. Will
son, it would not do to merely use the
words of the statute. The words OF the
legal significance, and never having been
finally and judicjally interpreted, must be
left to the particular Interpretation OF the
different courts before whom the question
might from Ilu1e 10 time arise. But, Willie
the law might be broad enough to cover
the case in point, Mr.. Wilson argued that
it was imperative because it failed to Spe-
officially define just what it meant, be-
CAUSE it is too general in other words.
Hypothetical Case.
The district attorney, said Mr.. Wilson.
contended that to any person f1eei-g from
justice the statute Of limitations did not
apply. But, remarked Mr.. Wilson, il that
were true a man might be indicted four or
more years after crime although he had
remained in the jurisdiction Of the court
for three years subsequent to the commits
sion of the crime and then had fed be-
cause of the particular offense, or because
of some other later offense.
Mr.. BirneY. however, disclaimed having
so contended, and Judge McComas ex-
planned that he had not SO understood the
district attorney.
Mr. Wilson then said that the only Ques-
ton at issue was whether an accused per-
son fleeing before the three years subse-
qrent to the offense had expired could be
reindicted after his apprehension. He con-
tended that he could not. But in the pres
ent case, Mr.. Wilson explained, Capt. How
gate had been in the jurisdiction of the
court for two and a half years after the
commission of the alleged offense. The Of
Tense IS alleged to have been committed
October Is, 1879, and not until April II,
1882, did the defendant leave the iurisdic-
ton of the court. During that time he mad
been indicted, arraigned and committed to
Jail, and the wheels of justice having been
thereby set I'm motion the statute of limi-
tations had commenced to run in favor of
the defendant, and no subsequent act Of
his, argued Mr.. Wilson, in conclusion,
could arrest or suspend it against him.
Mr.. Birney Sustained.
It was 2:15, however, before Judge
McComas had finished the prepara-
ton of the opinion which was awaited.
He said that he had listened patiently to
all that had been said, and would dispose
of the matter to the best of his ability.
He said that Howgate could not avail
himself of the benefits of the statute of
limitation, and could be reindicted upon his
apprehension. The governments demurrer
would therefore be sustained.