The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1897-01-01
Hnofi and Davis.

: OF our readers who feel disposed to Wonde
why the alleged horse thieves are retained II
Hartford for trial; we have made inquiries O
the proper authorities and from them receiv
ed the following facts:
Hoon and Davis, when they stole the team
in New Jersey and brought it into Hartford
county, committed larceny in this county a
we'll as in New Jersey.
There being no requisition yet made by thu
governor of New Jersey, these men will pro
badly be held to await the action oil our "ranc
Jury i'll February.
These men are generally believed to have
heen connected with nearly all of the depre
datious recently committed in the territory
between Baltimore and Philadclphia. IL 'nie
is true the authorities along this route, should
make common cause in the effert to convict
these men; and the question 10 DC ue'ei li'ue''
is, where is the strongest case ana where can
a conviction most probably be obtained! ana
fine item of EXPENSE, in view of the import
.rco If the case to the general public, is com
paratively unmportant.
The question involved in this case as 10 the
offence committed here was decided by the
Court OF Appeals in 1882, in the case oil or'h-
ineton VS. The State IS Md. 400. That was
case coming up from the Circuit Court Tor
| Washington county, Md, where Worthing-
ton was indicted and convicted for larceny in
Washington county by reason OF stealing
goods in West Virginia and bringing them
into Washington county. Judge Grason in
delivering the opinion of the Court in that
case says, inter ala; Larceny consists in the
wrongful taking and carrying away the chat
tel of another with felonious intent TO con
vert them to the takers own use and is a crime
at common law and consequently an offence
in every jurisdiction in which the common
law is art of the government law. And at
common law, every asportation is new lar
ceny When persons steals goods in another
State aud brings them into this, the person
stealing them cannot be indicted and punish
ed here for the crime committed in the form
er State for one State cannot enforce the
criminal laws of another; but the act OF bring
ing such stolen goods into this State Is, as we
have already stated, new larceny, for which
the party may be indicted i'll the Courts OF
this State and punished. The legal authority
to indict and punish in such cases has been
recognized and exercised by the Courts of
many States of the Union and we refer 10 the
following cases (here follows table OF cases
and authorities) One great objection which
has been urged against the principle sustained
by the decisions, to which We have referred,
is, that party may be punished twice for the
same offence, once in the State where the
larceny was first committed and again in the
State into which he carried the stolen goods.
II party has committed crime against the
laws of two States, we can see no good reason
why he should not be punished in both States,
and, Mr.. Bishop in his work on Criminal law
Sec, 1856 very justly says to let him go free OF
punishment for the felony which he IVES
committed against our laws because he had
before committed similar felony against the
law of another country, is TO suffer foreign
laws to suspend the action of our own. The
rulings of the Circuit Court will be affirm and
the cause remanded.
These men are under charge in Hartford
and Baltimore counties in this State, and in
Gloucester county in the State OF New Jersey.
1t is very doubtful iii the case for which they
are indicted in Baltimore county is strong
enough in its proof to convict. To have the
case tried in Gloucester county, New Jersey,
we would have to withdraw all charges in this
State and turn the men over to the New
Jersey people on a requisition of the COVER
nor of that State; and if by any possible
chance verdict of acQuital should be render
ed there it is questionable whether or not
the meu could be brought back into Maryland
on the former charge. II these men should
be tried at Bel Air, there is little doubt of the
evidence being sufficient to convict, but
should any accident occur by which verdict
OF not guilty would be rendered, the men can
then be turned over to Baltimore county
where the case would be tried and SO on until
the charges on which they are held in this
State are disposed of, and if the verdicts in
all these cases should by any possibility be
'snot guilty. then We could honor the cequisi
ton of the governor of New Jersey, if such a
re 1uisition should be lodged with us, which
is not yet the case. The chief question TO be
considered is in which county is there the
most certainty of conviction without multiply
ing cases? This question will be determined
after consultation between Messrs. Starr,
Ensor and Preston the prosecuting attorneys
OF the three counties, and upon their deter
mination the matter will depend.