The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-31

with intent to MAIN, dlsngure, disable,
OF Kill. it would be a felony, the prose-
cution of which is not barred by any
lapse of time; if a simple assault and
battery, it would be a miSdemeanor, a
prosecution for which is barsed after
twelve months from the commission of
the offence
But the question is asked, Does not the
result of the trial, the verdict of the jury
being one OF acquittal, put an end to the
matter forever? Otherwise. what dspo-
Sition would be made of the constitu-
tional inhibition against a person, for the
same offence, being twice put in jeo-
pardy? I answer, of course, the word
Jeopardy, as here employed, means a
condition of danger or peril of punish
ment before a legally constituted tribu-
nal. Such peril before commission ex-
listing or organized by no lawful author
ity would not be. Jeopardy at all in le-
gal intendment Hence, if the first posi-
ton be correct. the last follows as a
corollary to it. and the accused has never
therefore been put in jeopardy.
6. I have never seen the letter of Judge
Wood to The Times, but 1 gather from
the reference of that paper to it tina.
there was this peculiar circumstance con.
nected with the trial. The presiding
judge regarded the evidence as clearly
SS'''ciioiiiiiS q AAlEiS oLSSd ana DdtlGi
and he gave the jury instructions, which
if obeEed. must necessarily have resulted
in a verdict of conviction OF INSIDE
meanor. yet there was no conviction OF
any offense whatever.
Now this fragrant disregard of the in
stcuctons Of the court was an open VIC
lation OF the law as now we'll settled. In
1897 the case of the Commonwealth VS..
Garth was adjourned from the Circuit
Court of Albemarle to the general cour,
upon the question substantially of the
right OF the jury in criminal prosecu-
ton Tor mlsdemeanor to pass upon the
law as well as the facts. and the court
asking the aid of the bar the question
vas very fully discussed by the distin-
guished and learned Benjamin Watkins
Leigh, who was of opinion that the jury
had such right but the court never passed
upon the question, but remanded the case
for want of jurisdiction. g Leigh. 761 e.
seq0 The very question has, however,
recently been before our Court of APP
peals and has been equally. settled In
the case of Brown vs. Commonwealth
(S6 Va. Repts. 47O), Lewis, P. delivering
the unanimous opinion of the court, says:
The prisoner also moved the court to
instruct the jury that they were the
judges of the law as well as the facts
.iAS Sot1 lcIuSSus 10 give lIIe III
structlon. and the prisoner excepted
We think the instruction was rightly
refused" and in the further discussion
of the case. he quotes Mr. Justice Story
In United States VS.. Battiste. 2 SUNNI,
24o. who said: my opinion is that the
jury are no mere judges in a capital Or
other criminal case, upon the plea OF not
guilty. than they are in every ciril case
tried upon the general issue It
is the duty Of the court to instruct the
jury as to the law, and it is the duty
of the jury to follow the law as it is laid
down by the; court. If thought that the
jury were the proper Judges of the law
in criminal cases I should hold it my.
duty to abstain from the responsibility
of stating the law to them upon any
such trial.
How then could the jury do the lawless
thing in the face of these well settled
.adjudications, of simply disregarding the
courts Instructions and thus emphasiz-
ing the Irregularities and impropriettes
of the trial?
I do not concur with these who think
the Rev Mr. Crawford was without.
blame in this matter Chief Justice Mar
shall said '"rhe greatest curse that an
angry God could send upon free peo-s
pie is a corrupt judiciary. Could man
make a more grievous charge against the
1ncum bent of a judicial office. than that he
was corrupt. that he had been doctored...
&C., and hence was curse to his peo-