The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-02-05
Legal Cases of Differ
ent Jurisdiction.
KNoTTY PROBLEMS
Which Have Arisen in
Their Settlement.


give rise to queer legal problems. Law,
as defined by an old writer, is the per-
lection of human reason In a multi
tude of puzzling cases however, much
reasoning of a corollary sort has been
required to make the perfect reason
of the abstract law fit stated case.
In the entire range of the law no
more puZzling question can arise than
that as to the place where a. criminal
act is committed. says a writer in the
San Francisco Chronicle. The sensa-
tional Botkin murder trial in this city
furnished an instance of that sort. Law
writer's have quoted with approval the
decision of Judge Carroll Cook holding
that the fact of Mrs. Botkins alleged
victims having been poisoned in Della
ware did not prevent trial of the
woman for murder in California In
the same opinion the judge held that
Mrs. Botkin could not be extradited to
Delaware for the reason that the ac-
cused woman never having been in
Delaware could not, therefore, be
treated as a fugitive from justice"
within the meaning of the extradltion
laws OF the United States.
A special California statute rendered
II possible TO try Mrs. Botkin in Cali
fornia without leaving room for doubt
as to the legality of such proceeding
The law in question provides thai "all
persons who commit i'll whole or in part
any crime in this state" shall be liable
TO punishment under the laws cf 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,
Which a happy law rendered easy of
SnlUtiOn the nf la 1,
questions which IN other states have
given rise to strange complications.
Taking the BotiSin case as text writ
vers on the law have been ransacking
the legal archives of many courts. with
the result of bringing 20 light much in
teresting lore bearing on the Old ques-
lion, IF John Doe stands on one side
of a 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 where Rich
ard falls dead?' The question becomes
one of vast importance when it hap
pens that the stream or other line di-
viding murderer and victim happens
TO be the imaginary line which sonar
ates independent legal jurisdiction.
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 a pistol with felonious
intent at a person who was in a boat
on water embraced within the terrific
Aial limits of Georgia. The bullets went
wide of the person at which they were
aimed and splashed in the water. 1t
was held by the courts that the de-
PENDANT 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
IL - ~ -v~iN I,
in this state, and it Is, therefore GER
tain 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 construct
lively in the state of Georgia. This
holding was upon a theory of the law,
that where one puts in force an agency
for the commission of crime, he, in le-
gal contemplation, accompanies the
same to the place where ii becomes eff
fectual The same theory applied to
the Botllin case would have made the
sender of the poisoned candy accom-
pany the package to Delaware and be-
come constru ctiVely, and for all the
purposes of the law, a resident of that
state.
The Simpson case in Georgia recently
resembles a case in Tennessee. A ball
fired across the state line from North
Carolina took effect upon man in Ten
nessee. causing death. Because OF
this nuddled and divided jurisdiction
the courts of North Carolina held that
conviction for murder IN that state
could not be sustained. A curious Sc
que 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 Guteau for the assassi-
nation Of President Garfield, was the
occasion Of debate as to jurisdiction
of the murderer. 1t will be recalled
that Guiteau shot his victim in Wash
-ington, and that thereafter the mar
tSred president was removed to New
Jersey. where he died three months la
ter. 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 with
out Jurisdiction. The judges overruled
this contention, finding from the au-
thorities that where a felonious blow is
struck in one county and death results
In another, the murder is complete in
the county where the blow was struck.
"A number of interesting cases appear
in old federal court reports. In 1906 il
was held that a statute giving the
United States courts jurisdiction of
murders committed on the high seas
conferred no jurisdiction where a
wound was inflicted on the high seas
and death resulted after land was
reached. In similar case, it was held
that there could be no unlawful killing
ON the high seas where death resulted
on land. Still more strange was the
application of the law in a case where
a mortal blow was inflicted in Alexan-
dria, Va, and death followed in Mary
land. 1t was held that the court at
Alexandria had no jurisdiction Of the
oifense as a homicide. but only as an
assault of battery the murder not be-
ing complete in the first named place.
The courts of England wrestled with
a complicated question Of this kind i'm
1884. smuggler named George
Coombes, standing on the shore, fired
at and killed the master of the sloop
Orestes. who was rowing toward the
shore for the purpose Of Selling a
smuggling lugger from which Coombes
had disembarked. The question was
az to whether Coombes should be tried
by the admiralty courts thus fixing the
crime as having been committed on the
boat where the shot took effect. or bv
the courts of common law, which had
jurisdiction of the place where Coornhes
was standing. This knotty problem
called forth an argument before "all
the judges of England in the eXcheuuer
chamber The decision rendered bv
this array OF judges was that the adj
mralty courts had Jurisdiction the
crime being considered as committee
where the shot took effect.
The united States courts some years
later dealt with q case Of similar char