The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-06-29
A GROSS TECHNICALITN.

according 10 the decision Of Judge Mullen
or The Hastings Court one Williamson, chargcd
.righ. killing lis wife with being a biganisi'
and having been tried for both crimes, now goes
j. the penetentiary 10 serve short term LOT
h,ganv. while pending the service ot his sentence
IL NAV NOT I've again tried on the charge OF mnr,
der. on the first trial Of which the jury failed
Ia agree.
This remarkable chain Of circumstances Is
brought about bv the fact that after the mlstrlal
IN the murder case. sentence was imposed Tor
n~evious conviction Of bigamv. 1t follows there
fore. in accordance with the plea Of the prisoner
whirh thu, Judge has sustained, that he Is now
4pnvict in the custody Of the State and not with
IN the jurisdiction Of the court. He can only
lss tried. therefore after the service OF his term
upcn the sentence for bigamy.
As a result Of this rule, it follows that con
riction of murder will BE- much more difficult
after four years. Witnesses may well have died
or disappeared The circumstances surrounding
the alleged crime viii have faded from popular
n,eraorv. The whole matter will be cold
The result. in fact, is practically foretold by the
delay
Otherwise, WilIamsons technical liberty
might he restored to him by pardon by the Gov
ernor, in order to put him again IN the Jurls-
diction Of the Court for trial, but in that event
the chances are that man already convicted OF
bicamv and charged with murder, would simply
4 ~ hardened for the one crime and acquitted OF
-guIft of the other.
IF the decision of the trial Judge is good law
some one has in the management of this case
egregiouslv Numbered With all due respect for
the Judge, however and well aware of the fact
that there are various legal technicalities which
are sound in themselves but which in particular
cases work seeming absurdities, we cannot be-
liege that the course in Wiiamson's case is that
of the law. If it is, the law ought certainly
to be changed. 1t is supposed TO be based on rea
son and common sense. If in the attempt Il
proceed from such premises, it becomes non
sensical the remedy is a practical recurrence t.
Fundamental principles. One Of those Is th'
I sacredness Of human life and the speedy trial o
all charged with crime. Nor is the speedy tria
properly benefit for the exclusive cnjoymen
4 Of the prisoner The State has an interest and
vital one for it is by delay in punishment as wei
as the prefering of an old charge that justice /
frequently thwarted and crime il given the III
vitation that lies in the hope Of immunity from
the results of its commission Take, as an tx
ample. the possible case of convict serving
five year sentence, who should during his in
generation manage 10 kill citizen OF the state
Would it be contended that, because the Stat
was already engaged in Furnishing him for on
crime, it should delay punishment for a NOR
serious one until the hope of imposing that pun
ishment was gomez Is this not trchnicalit,
beyond reason and without sense! Is it not dan
gerous, and perversion of justice
As we understand tho particular case thu
matter is settled because there is no method b,
which the decision may be tested on appeal
While it is true that of similar circum
stances viii scarcely arise in the future, ii j
matter for distinct regret that, the plea havin!
been made, il could not have been finally de
termined in the court Of ultimate resort. Thu
matter, however, is one that ought to be sus
ceptible 10 statutory remedy We trust anc
believe that the remedy will be forthcoming.