Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-13
CASE OF TWITCHELL.
SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO
HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT.
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION INVOLVED.
That the Henrico Court
House Being within the Corporate
Limits Only City officers Have
Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction.

The Twitchell case Is now in the hands
of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and the
man who shot Paul Davis the
negro who had assaulted his daughter,
is in the custody of that court, though
still held a prisoner in the county Jail.
In obedience to the mandate OF the
Supreme Court, Sheriff Simon Solomon
produced Twitchell in that court yester-
day morning. and through Attorney
General r. Taylor Scott and Common
wealth's-Attorney Sands, filed his answer
to the motion for a writ of habeas
corpus, maze by Wise & Wise, counsel
for Twitchell. The answer AYERS that
the Henrico courthouse is in the juris
diction of the county, and not part of
the city, as maintained by Twitchelrs
counsel, and to maintain this claim, seve-
raj legislative acts are cited, one
of which, enacted many years ago, de-
fines the borders of Henrico. and de-
clares the courthouse grounds in the
city to be a portion of the county.
The lawyers on both sides were pre-
pared to argue the case, but the court
preferred not to hear argument, and
directed Sheriff Solomon to take charge
of the prisoner and keep him in custody,
subject only to its orders. A decision in
the case will probably be handed down
Thursday.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
Though 1t is not generally known, there
hangs upon this case a great deal more
than the liberty of Twitchell. If the
court decides that the county hasn't
jurisdiction in its courthouse grounds,
II will mean that henceforth no con-
stable of the county will be authorized
to make an arrest therein; that no
magistrate Of the county will have
power to issue a warrant within the
courthouse or within the city limits:
that all magisterial trials, unless held
beyond the borders of Richmond, will
be unlawful. and that any notary public
appointed for the county TO swear a
person who may want to take oath at
the courthouse will have to take him
beyond the city limits in order to legally
administer the oath.
In their petition for the release Of
their client, Messrs. Wise & Wise cite
the Fitch case and the Chahoon cases,
both Of which are parallel with the one
at issue. The Fitch case was decided
by this present Court of Appeals. Fitch
was accused of perjuring himself in the
Augusta County Court, which is in the
city of Staunton. He was arrested by
the city police, and tried and convicted
OF the offence in the Corporation Court.
1t was contended that the Corporation
Court hadn't jurisdiction. but the SUI
preme Court decided that IL had.
The Chahoon case had it's theatre in
Richmond and in Henrico. Chahoon,
who was Mayor of this city at one time,
was charged with forging and uttering
a bond and he was arrested and tried
therefor in the Corporation Court of
this city. 1t could not be proved that
he had committed the forgery, but it
was proven that he uttered the bond by
sueing on it in the County Court.
1t was contended by his counsel
that the deed was. therefore, COM
mitted in the county. and the
city hadn't jurisdiction, but the Supreme
Court decided otherwise.
POINT TO BE BROUGHT OUT.
1t is contended in the light of these
decisions that the city has jurisdiction
in this case, and in view of the fact
that Messrs. Wise and Wise will bring
out the fact that the statute providing
for the removal Of the county seat to
this city only grants permission for the
holding OF the County and Circuit courts
within the municipality. it would appear
also that the decision, if adverse to the
county will have a far-reachng effect,