Valdez daily prospector., 1915-12-08
NEW WRINKLE IN DOCK CASE
Defense Raises Point that PrOsecu. tion Cannot Appeal from Ad-
 verse Judgment.

that no appeal or writ of error will lie from the judgment of Judge Brown in the district court dismiss ing the complaint against the dock company for violation of the dock or dinance of the Town of Valdez. They urge that the judgment of dismissal has the same effect in law as a yer dict of acquittal by jury.
 The federal constitution provides that no person may be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense. For that reason the state cannot have a new trial or an appeal after yer dict of acquittal. In this instance the defendants attorneys affirm that the dismissal of the complain by Judge Brown after a trial was an acquittal and was final determine tion of the case. They produced numerous authorities in support of the contention. On that ground they made formal objection to allowance of a writ of error by Judge Brown to take the case to the circuit court of appeals, although they agreed with the suggestion of Judge Brown that the question of jurisdiction can be raised in any case at any stage of the proceedings, and that it was not necessary to object at this time in or der to save the point. Judge Brown stated, however that he was inclin- ed to believe that the objection was we'll taken, but he nevertheless sign ed the writ of error in order to let the appellate court pass upon it if the case goes up.
 Among the federal and state au- thorities cited by counsel for the Dock Company are the following:
 In United States vs. Sanges, IA U. s. BIO, defendants demurred to an indictment against them and the demurrer was sustained and the i'm dictment quashed in the United States circuit court for the Northern district of Georgia. The United States appealed to the supreme court, which dismissed the appeal for want of Jurisdiction. In delivering the opinion of the court Justice Gray said:
 "It is settled by an overwhelm-
 ing weight of American authority
 that the State has no right to sue
 out a writ of error upon a judg-
 ment in favor of the defendant in
 a criminal case, except under and
 in accordance with expressed stat
 utes, whether that judgment was
 rendered upon verdict of acquit-
 tai or upon the determination by
 the court of a question of law"
 Further in the opinion Justice Gray cited the following from the supreme court of Tennessee in dis missing an appeal by the state after an acquittal:
 "A writ of error, or appeal in
 the nature of writ of error, will
 not lie for the State in such a case.
 It is a rule of common law that no
 one shall be brought twice in
 jeopardy for one and the same of-
 fense. Were 1t not for this salu-
 tary rule one obnoxious to the gov
 ernment might be harassed and
 run down by repeated attempts to
 carry on prosecution against
 him. Because of this rule it Is
 that a new trial cannot be granted
 in a criminal case where the de-
 fendant is acquitted. A writ of
 error will lie for the defendant,
 but not against him. This is rule of such vital importance to the se- curity of the citizen that 1t can
 not be impaired except by express words" It is claimed by the defendants counsel that the Oregon case of City of Portland vs. Erickson, 62 Pacific Reporter, 753, is an absolute paral- Tel to the Valdez Dock case. In the Erickson case defendant was acquit- ted in the municipal court of the City of Portland of violation of city ordinance. The city obtained writ of review from the circuit court of Multnomah county, which set aside the verdict of acquittal and ordered new trial Erickson appealed to the supreme court, which reversed the circuit court and dismissed the case. In the syllabus the court held. Where violator of such ordi- nance was acquitted by the muni-
 cipal court such acquittal could l not be reviewed by the circuit
 court by writ of review, since the
 violation of an ordinance which faI~ IHx, %r{o on,1.