Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1907-05-31


The case of George MidgeIs, ala Wm.
Johnson, convicted Of murder ir the first
degree for the killing Of Cbas t Smith
on toe night Of October 20, 1906, and
which is now pen ding in the Court OF
Appeals on a writ of error aud supersedss
10 the Judgment of the Cooperation Court
of this cry, has created considerable
controversy. During the trial a num-
Der Of exceptions we're taken to the
rulings OF the court. The principal ex'
ception, and the one on which, 1t is sup
posed, the writ of error was granted, is
The motioo for change of venue. This
motion is based upon section 4O36 of the
code, which is as follow:
Tbat whenever the mayor OF anv CITY
shall call on the governor for military
force to protect the accused from violence,
shat the Judge Of the Corporation
Court having jurisdiction of the offence,
shall. uoon petition signed and sworn to
by the accused, whether the accused be
present or not, ct once order the venue
TO be changed to Corporation Court or
a Circuit Court of county sufficiently
remote from the place where the offence
was committed to insure the safe and
impartial trial of the accused.
The mayor of this city called upon
the governor for the military force to
rro,ect The accused on Saturday, March
% 1907. aud the military accompanied
Midgets to ibis city on Monday, March
95tb' Midgets could have made bis
motion when the military force was call
ed for. but this he did not do. dis
presence for the purpose was not neces-
sary: be could have made this motion
when he reached this city, and the mo-
zion would have been granted. When
his trial was called he failed again to
make the motion, but moved for a con-
tiuuapce. When this motion was over
ruled. be demurre1 TO the indictment
and also moved TO quash the indictment,
which demurrer and motion to quash
the court overruled, and it was not until
after the questions had been passed upon
adversely TO the accused, that ne under
look TO avsil himself of his right under
section 4O36. The commonwealth con-
tends that the motion for change OF
venue came too late. The accused had
His RIGHT to ssk for change OF venue ss
soon IA The military force was called tor
ne the mayor, but having failed 70 avail
bimself of the ri2ht, and having Wiling
~ and voluntarily waived that right by
making the motions referred to, ne could
not he permitted to triAe with the court
or sIeep upon his rights. The common
eVealth lnrl her contends that the bills OF
execution were not signed by the judge
of the courtin the proper time, and thst
the writ of error will be dismissed.
the bills of exceptions are signed
Anil %. 1907, but the minute book o.
the court nowhere shows that the bills
we're ever signed. Section 1885 OF the
code gives the judge the right 10 sign
bills of exceptions either during The term
of the court or in vacation within thirty
DAVIS after the end of such term. The
March term adjourned on April 6 and
tn, April tera. began on April 8. These
bills should have been signed during the
March term, or in vacation between
April and 8. The Court Of Appeals
has decided this question in a recent case,
Hoover ct ais, VS.. Saunders, 1O4 Va,
%. 7O3 holding that the judges power
to sign the bills did not extend beyond
the vacation OF the court, aud if signed
after that time the writ of error would
be dismissed. As the April term began
on the 9Th day of April the Judge had
no authority to sign them on the 18th
dsv nf ADril