Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-07-16
A DILEMMA.
Gome Evils of Recent Legislation
That Need Correction.

TO the Editor of the Dispatch:
| wish TO call attention TO some of the
evils of recent legislation, and particu-
larly to the amendment to section 4lO6 oil
the Code of 1881.
Under sections 9Oi6 and 40l6 the county
courts, except where otherwise provided
had exclusive original jurisdiction OF all
msdemeanor and felony cases. Section
4lOs gave justices concurrent jurisdiction
with county courts in a specified number
of petty misdemeanors, petit larceny, car
rying concealed weapons, disturbing re-
ligious worship. &c. At this time one ar
raigned in county court Tor felony, ii
punishment might be death. could elect 10
be tried in the circuit court. III Justices
were prompt and efficient, grand juries
were not called upon TO investigate mis-
demeanors Of that class over which JUS
tices had Jurisdiction. II justice tried the
case first, that ended the matter, or ac-
cused could appeal Of right TO county
court These were just provisions.
But the amendment to section lOl6, Acts
1924. page, 27O. took away this right OF
election and power of circuit court TO try
felony cases, except on appeal. No pro-
vision was made for the trial OF any such
cases then in these courts, nor for re-
manding them to the county courts. This
statute went into effect from its passage.
Many criminals legally escaped trial I'M
der this law.
The Mary Miller case, decided 18th
January, 1892, declared section 4lOs, as III
Code, unconstitutional. On 23d February,
1894. Acts 1864 page 43l, this section
was amended TO lit that decision, but the
a.. ft- Qrlf
This simply gave accused, in the cases
enumerated the right to elect to be tried
by Justice. Justices were slow in hearing
Of or in obeylng the change, and most OF
the cases were sent to court. Costs were
heaped up against the Commonwealth.
The Miller case was oyeTruled l4th FeD-
ruary, 1895, In Brown VS.. Epes, and sec
ton 4lO6. as originally in Code, virtually
upheld; but the statute required amend
ment again. a special session of Legisia-
ture was not deemed expedient. When
Legislature met last December the courts
were looking for some change. great
cry had been raised for the reduction oil
criminal charges. The change was not
made till the Legislature was about 10
adjourn; it was approved 9Th Of March,
1896. Few, If any, were looking for such
a radical measure, instantly put In force.
See Acts lS99- 10, page va.
This statute, without in terms referring
to any other, and without expressly re-
pealing any in conflict amends and re-
| enacts section 41O6 of the Code. Ii strip
| ned the county and corporation courts OF
| all original jurisdiction ''in all INSIDE
meanor cases" and gave exclusive origi-
nal Jurisdiction" in all such cases to the
| justices, and made no provision for the
trial of any such case then in any of the
| lOl county courts or the several corpora
ton courts.
| This statute was in force month or
more before many of the courts were
aware of its existence. Criminals were in
dicted, convicted, and sentenced to i'm
prisonment before some courts knew. or
| could know, of the law. At the next term
| the parties convicted were released and
| executions for fines quashed. Everything
| done in misdemednor cases after the 4th
| day Of March, 1896. was void. All the
| cases then on docket In all these courts
were dismissed. This was expense, and
| no good came of IT,.
MANY misdemeanors are serious crimes.
| and the law bearing on them intricate
and technical. once out of court, but Few
| were ever taken before justice. party
was indicted for grand larceny, stealing
! "a in value. tried and convicted of steal
| ing only sac petit larceny, and sentenced
| The fudge of the circuit court reluctantly
| discharged him. not because he was inno-
| cent. but because the court had no Juris-
| diction. In January, 1896 Virginia Law
| Register. page 691, Judge Burke. speaking
| of the acts of the Legislature, says they
ARE usually made TO take effect from
| their passage-a most pernicious prac-
tice. And yet obedience Is exacted
Il 90 In "a 4. ..sff h
held" Some 100 sections of the Code
were amended last session. OF these only
about fourteen did not 80 into effect from
| passage
One instance Of the serious consequence
which might arise from this practice Is
seen from amendment of section $3.50.
! Acts 1885, 49, page 673. The age of consent
| for many years was placed at II years.
| This amendment raised IL, very properly,
| to II years (but Is would have been bet
| teri. The point Is that this may near
! death to some man. who at the time could
| only know he was committing a misde-
meanor-that Is, adultery or fornication.
The policy OF such acts may well be
| doubted. But be that as it may. the law
| ought TO have set future day for its
| commencement. and the dockets could
| have been cleaned UP by that time. The
/ present JUSTICES were not ft-cltCttu VIII
a view TO their new jurisdiction. Justices
may now convict of perjury, fine accused
81 900, imprson twelve months, and the
conviction debar him from holding office
being Juror or witness. See sections
s742-3. All attempts to kill. unless IL be &c
commit murder i'm first degree, are mis-
demeanors. No serious misdemeanor viii
end before .he justice unless there be an
acauittal and from ignorance of law
there will be many. The smallest fines
will be imposed. The justice must b,
popular The popular vote elects him
Criminals dread grand turies and public
| trials
This amendment, instantly enforced as
law and radical Ia the extreme, practical
ly destroys many sections OF the Code oil
Judges Of county and corporation court:
are in danger % OF being tried befor,
these powerful justices and fined. or tbs
Legislature may get after them for failure
10 discharge plain statutory duties. j
! vill be vain to charge grand juries upor