Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1899-06-01

In TIE entire range of the law no
moN paZ2ling question can arise than
that MS 20 the place where criminal
act Is committed, The sensational
botkin murder trial in this city fur
nishe" an instance OF that sort. Law
writers have quoted with approval
the decision Of Judge Carroll Cook
holding that the fact OF Mrs. Botkiu's
allescd victims having been poisoned
III Delaware did not prevent trial
OF The woman for murder in Caufor-
MIA In the same opinion the Judge
held that Mrs, Botkin could not be
eXtradted to Delaware for the rea-
son that the accused woman never
having been in Delaware could not
therefore be treated as "fugitive
from Justice" within the meaning OF
the oNtradition laws of the United
States
a special California statute render
ed Il possible to try Mrs. Botkin In
California without leaving room for
doubt as to the legality of such pro-
ceodinE, The law in question pro.
vides that 'all persons who commit in
whole or in part any crime in this
state shall he liable to punish
ment under the laws of this state. =
Under this statute jurisdiction vested
In the California courts because OF
clear proof that the sending OF the
poisoned candies had been from this
state.
The legal puzzle In the Botkin case
was the repetition OF similar oues-
lions which in other states have given
rise to strange complications. Taking
the Botllin case as text writer's on
the law have been ransacling the
legal archives of many courts with the
result of bringing to light much in
teresung lore bearing on the old ques-
ton, IF John Doe stands on one side
OF stream and shoots at and kills
Richard Roe standing on the other
side of the stream is the crime of
murder committed on the side from
which John shoots or on the side
whore Richard falls dead?" The ques-
ton becomes one of vast Importance
when 1t happens that the stream or
other line dividing murderer and vic
tim happens to be the imaginary line
which separates Independent legal jur-
isdictions.
A most interesting problem of this
sort some years ago engaged the at
tention of the courts of Georgia. A
man named Simpson, standing In
South Carolina, fired pistol with
felonious intent at person who was
in a boat on water embraced within
the territorial limits OF Georgia. The
bullits went wide of the person at
which they were aimed and splashed
In the water. 1t was held by the
courts that the defendant was guilty
Of an assault to murder In Georgia,
because" said the Judge, the balls
did strike the water Of the river In
close proximity to him (the prescott
ing witness) within this state, and It
Is, therefore, certain that they took
effect In Georgia"
For the purposes Of the case the
Judge held further that the defendant,
when he fired the shots, was con
structively in the state of Georgia
This holding was upon theory OF
the law that where one puts in force
an agency for the commission OF
crime he, In legal contemplation, ac-
companies the same to the place where
it becomes effectual The same theory
applied to the Botkin case would
have made the sender Of the poisoned
candy accompany the package to Del
aware and become constructively and
for all the purposes of the law resi-
dent Of that state.
The Simpson case In Georgia greatly
resembles case In Tennessee. A ball
fired across the state line from North
Carolina took effect upon man In
Tennessee, causing death. Because
Of this muddled and divided jurs-
dction the courts Of North Caro-
lima held that conviction for murder
In that state could not be sustained.
A curious sequel followed this decision
through an attempt by extradition
proceedings to take the accused to
Tennessee The attempt failed the
courts holding, as did Judge Cook In
the Botkin case, that the defendant,
never having been In Tennessee, could
not be fugitive from that state.
The trial OF Guiteau for the assassI-
nation Of President Garfield was the
occasion OF debate as to Jurisdiction
Of the murderer. It will be recalled
that Guiteau shot his victim in Wash
ington and that thereafter the
martyred president was removed to
New Jersey, where he died three
months later. Counsel for Guiteau
urged at his trial in Washington that
the crime had not been completed in
the District Of Columbia and that
the court was without Jurisdiction.
The judge oyerruled this contention,
finding from the authorities that
where the felonious blow is struck In
one county and death results In an
other the murder Is complete in the