The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1898-10-05
CAN THE LAW
REACH HERR.
Attorneys For Her Say It
Cannot and Precendents
Seem to Prove
Them Right.

How Is Mrs. Botkin. tho California pois.
oncr,to be successfully proceeded againstf
Tho most unique and puzzling qu st o IS
Of criminal law arise to make the answer
to this question difficult one.
1t Is said upon tho authority of an at
tornoy who had some professional conrec.
tion with the case that Mrs. Bo;kin's at.
torneys have assured her that she canr rot
be prosecuted In California, nor can she bo
extradited as fugitive from jus.ico.to Il
state in which she has never been. Tho
queslio ions that arise are novel, but not en-
tirely new. The candy was purchased
in San Francisco, and tho poison injected
into 1t there, the package being sent by
mail to Dove =, Del, where 1t was eaten,
resultinglin the death Of Mrs. DunDing,
her baby and sister. Mrs. Botkin being in
! California. the candy having been pur-
chased there, tho poison having been in
iected into 1t there, the agency causing
the death having been set In motion there
and the persons injured being in Della.
ware, the question arises Wher. was the
crir committed and in which State
must tho guilty person be Tried? The an
swer Is, Delaware The rule that makes
this answer certain Ia well settled, both
at common law aud by the statutes of the
various states, tho cases leading to tho
adoption Of the rule In the settlement Of
tbe question being interesting.
Tho leading case In this country, and
case exactly in point, Is the case OF tho
State of North Carolina against Black.
which will be found reported IN One Hun.
dred and Fourteenth North Carolina Re-
ports, at Page 905. In this caee Black,
while standing in tho State of North Car
0line shot across the line and killed a man
IN the State OF Tennessee. He,w indicted,
tried and found guilty, ,bnt the North Car.
olina Supreme Court held that he was
not ryable in that state, as the crime was
committed in Tennessee, where the shot
LOOK effect, and not where the agency
causing death was set in motion, or where
The shot WINS fired.
This is the general rule, well settled,
both in this country and In Great Britain;
the reasoning being on the ground that n
person who sets in motion an such agency
with the attempt to kill orinjure any por-
son, accompanies su agency to the place
where 1t iniures the person, and is legally
speaking, represented by such agency at
the point where 1t takes effect and in the
language Of the Courts Is present con-
structively.
In this same connection 1t was held IN
the case of Simpson against Georgia, 90
Georgia. Page Al, that Simpson, who shot
at T. man in Georgin while standing in
North Carolina, was guilty Of shooting 'at
another" although the bullet did not take
eff, ct.
1t was held in what is known as tho So
c:ety Islands cas,. which will be found re-
ported In United States Supreme Court
Reports, Summer, Page 49,, Ms. Justice
Storey delivering the opinion. that where
a gun was fired from the deck of an Amer
lean ship anchored in a port Of the Society
Islands, by which q person on board
schooner belonging to Ma ives Of the So.
ciety Islands, and anchored in tho same
port was killed, that the offense wa, COM
mitted on the schooner as the shot took ef-
feet aud the death happened on board the
schooner, and the act was, In contempla-
tion Of law, dono where the shot took ef-
feet. From the cases it will be seen that
the crime was undoubtedly committed In
Delaware. The next question that arises
is, Can the prisoner bs taken to Delaware
undcr the extradition proceedings9
1t is ordained In the constitution of the
United States that "a person charged in
any State with treason. felony or other
crime who shall fec from justice and DO |
found in another State. SHALL on demand |
of tho Executive authority Of the State
from which he fed DO dol ivered up, to be
removed to the State having Jurisdiction
of the crime.
These words taken as they must bo In
their natural and obvious sense, do not
include case Of constructive presence In |
the demanding State at the time he COM
mits the act OF which complaint is made
This section has been passed upon by The
Courts OF several Stntss, and in each in.
stance 1t has been cons rued to moan,
That person must have been actively
and not constructive'y present in the state
boforo he could bo extradited.
In the Hall case, above men,
toned, on effort was mado to e1tradite
him TO tennessee, but 1t was failure, as
the North Carolina supreme Court held
ll5 North Carolina, Pago Sls' that tho per-
son must have been actually present In the
state at or since the crime was committed
and' not having been In Tennessee since
The act was committed, uld not by any
be held fugitive from JUS
lice, as contemplated by tho passage Of the
constitution above referred to- and so
'oulu nos DO eextraditeu. Th6 sano con-
,GCLlOn III tn0 CaSO OF The StAte 1QAinat /