Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-02-06
THE HuNDLEY BILL.

The bill governing the appellate courts
OF the state OF Virginia. In cohs'oe'-
ing applications for and the granting Oh
new trials I'm criminal cases" passed the
House yesterday. after the stoutest hsht
made on any bill this session. py
vote OF 70 TO 80.
This is the greatest movement yet made
in this Commonwealth TO put a stop 20
lynchings. The object OF the measure
is to forbid the granting OF new trials
upon merely technical grounds.
About three years ago ,soon after the
lynching which took place In Ameha
county. we believer. the Dispatch invited
a large number of prominent lawyers
of this State to use it's columns 10 eX-
press their opinions as 10 what reforms
were needed to secure better administra-
ton of criminal justice in Virginia. Ihe
great majority promptly responded. ana
most Of them said that too many new
trials were granted-granted for insufi-
cient causes. Time and again since
that time has the Dispatch urged rene
dial legislation. but not until recently
was the subject taken into serious con-
sideraiion True. there was legislation
ensurlng quick trials for men charged
with certain offences against women.
but the general subject was not touched.
This Is what General Hundley has under.
taken TO do i'm the bill which the House
has passed. and will now communicate to
the Senate. 1t provides that. in con-
sidering applications for new trials in
criminal cases, our appellate courts shall
presume that i'm the trial court every re-
quirement Of law with regard to issuing
processes. summoning and impanelling
grand juries and venires. and the man
ner Of conducting the trial. was properly
observed, whether the record so shows
or not. This is and has long been the
rule in civil cases, and the bill simply
places criminal cases on the same
footing II also provides that no new
trial shall be granted by an appellate
court I'm criminal cases on account OF any
defect IN the indictment, or other
technical irregularity or defect In the
proceedings or incompetency or legal dis
qualification Of any juror, or on account
Of any error. irrogularity. or informali-
~ I'm the trial-court THAT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
unless il shall appear from the record
that objection was made in the trial
court. and that the attention OF the
said court WAS called to the matter OBJ
iected to during the term. OF said
court II which the trial was
had and said court refused to
correct the same or grant new
trial: provided. always. that the record
shall show afflrmatively that the ac-
cuscd was indicted, and was tried and
convicted by an impartial jury.
The sum and substance Of the bill
Is that it wipes out the chance to de-
feat justice by raising miserable tech
meal objections in the appellate courts
for the first time.
Among the lawyers OF the House who
favored the bill were Messrs. Saunders
chairman Of the Committee on Courts;
Parks, of Page; Parker. OF Southampton;
Hundley. OF Amelia; Fishburne, OF Au-
gusta, and Reddy. of Richmond. Among
those opposed to 1t were Messrs. Ran
dolph Harrison. McRae. Hathaway,
Berkeley. Lee, and Cole.
General Hundley challenged the OPP
ponents of the bill to show that It took
from any man any constitutional right,
and we understand Mr.. McRae CON
ceded that IT was constitutional, though
he opposed it (and very ably as matter
Of policy.
1t seems to us that it is such reform as
this that the people want. IL will be
a preventive of lynchlng 1t will save
criminal charges, and the House was
convinced that It will work no injustice
to any one. But, as an additional gatc-
guard. we feel sure that the people would
approve of the passage Of law providing
that all persons arragned for capital
crimes shall be provided with counsel TO
defend them. We see no reason Why this
cannot be done, and we believe that the
two laws would 90 we'll together, and
would receive the unqualified approval
of the great mass of the intelligent people
Of this State.