Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1898-09-15
THE FISHER DECISION.
Gconunued From First Page,l

1sfied that no injustice has Deen ucnt, |
and that the verdict would have been
the same. with or without such evil
dence. they have refused a new trial.
In such language have some of the
able courts in thi6 country expressed
their opinions upon this question, and
that it embodies the law on the sub
ject at the present time is abundantly
shown by the whole trend of modern
decisions. Mining Co. VS.. Taylor 100
U. S. AZ. Leach VS.. People, SO ILL.,, 3lS.
Mclean VS.. Manhatton r. Co. III n.
Y 224. Forrest VS., Forrest % n. Y.
$40 State vs.. McCaffrey GO Iowa asa.
Ritzman VS.. People 10, III, 372. Wing
VS.. Chesterfield 116 Mass 1856. Hamm
VS.. Wisconsin & r. Co. 81 Iowa TIC. Gil
rard ms Co. VS.. Mari 46 Pa. 507. Gregg
VS.. Moss IA Wall 569 Gilbert ve. Mo
line Plough Co. 119 U. S. 494. Wallace
VS.. People 159 Ill. 446 Stephens Digest
of Ev I'D Ed $50 (note). 2 Ency.
of Plead? & Prac., 500, 5O7 (and many
cases there citedl)
The only authority cited by the plain
tiff in error which at first glance might
seem to announce a different doctrine,
is the case of Waldron vs. Waldron 1866
L. S. 361, in which Mr.. Justice White
used the following language: 1T is ele.
mentary that the admission of Illegal
evidence over objection, necessitatee
reversal" But this case when the en-
tire opinion is carefully examined, is
| found to be fully in accord with the
authorities above mentioned. The
learned justice by illegal evidence
undoubtedly meant such evidence as
was preiudicial to the defendant, be-
cause at the close OF his opinion he
says 1--WE have not rested our decree
upon the question of the admissibility
Of this evidence, because the mere ille-
gal introduction of irrelevent evidence
does not necessarily constitute reversi-
bic error" It has been frequently held
that some regard should be had by ap-
pelate courts to public policy, and that
such courts should not encourage liti.
cation by reversing judgments fOl
technical formal or other errors which
the record affirmatively shows could
not have prejudiced the appellant
rights. Every interest of the public
demands that the judgment of the
lower court should stand in the cour
above. If on the whole record Il APP.
pears that justice has been done. and
that the defendant has sustained no in
jury When the accused has had a fail
and legal trial in the court below, tn,
appellate tribunal should not for tech
nical error or harmless mistake nullifl
the result Of such trial. This we be-
lieve to be sound doctrine, and it is Ger
tainly consistent with good sense an,
reason. The public should not be sub
jected to the expense of a second tria
unless there has been some illegalit,
in the proceedings of the first whicl
was injurious to the prisoner.
We have taken some pains to state a.
! clearly as we could in this first crimi
nal case the rule laid down by tn
courts upon this question. We believ
/ II to be the law, and that public polio
! as well as the public interest and tn
p public security, demand its apDlicatio
! and enforcement by appellate courts
We did not understand that the learne
counsel for the plaintiff in error. in hi
exceptionally able and exhaustive ar
I gument before the court, really ques
TONED the soundness of the law a
above stated, but that he denied tn
E application of that law to the presen
case. We are therefore required Il,
q examine with some care the facts an,
proceedings disclosed by the record fl
/ this case, in order to be able the NOR
4 intelligently to judge whether or no
the case is governed by the rules q
I law above mentioned. The record dis
closes that William Fisher. the plain
TIN in error, was tried in the Court q
oyer and Terminer in New Cast
o county at the May term, 1898. upon a
indictment charging him with tn
capital offense of felOniously breakin
and entering into the dwelling hous
of one William Hunt, in the night tim,
G with intent to commit the crime &
! rape upon Maria Hunt, against the az
Of the General Assembly Of this stat,
At such trial the jury rendered a vei
. dict against the defendant Of guilty /
manner and form as indicted.
s There were two assignments of erro
filed in the case, but the counsel 70
!. the plaintiff in error, in his argumer
before this court, stated that he relic
o solely upon the first assignment, whic
Is as follows:
n Because the court erred in admittin
= the following testimony as evidence (
said cause:
(. Go ahead and state what was done
e BY Mr. Nields: Don't say what any
one said to you.
j A. l was informed that a colore
e man had broken (Ansyer objected I
y by Mr.. Nields and witness cautioned b
, the court not to say what any perso
said, but only to state that in const
y quence Of information he mad he di
e certain things.)
L Q. What was the information y0
d did receive? (Objected to by Mr.. Med
because the Information he receive
!. would be the substance Of what Wa
/, said to him by another person and
!, was therefore inadmissibie.)
e Grubb j: He can say in consequence
Of information received by him VII.
he did.
n Q. What information did you r,
ceive?
l. A. l was informed that a negro ha
n broken into a house and tried to con
init rape on a white woman (Obiecte
N to by mr.. Nields as absolutely ina,
L..