The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1915-05-29
d mons
BY the State Supreme Court in
Several Cases Involving the
Yost rohibition Law.
tsrrc,AL 70 rrE :TEtEorA~1

ESPECIAL TO Tttr :TELEoRAAo
CHARLESTON, May 2e.-The SUI
cases. in which were involved ques-
tfonss arising under the prohibition
! laws OF the state.
The court held that section %. chap
ter Il, acts 1915, was unconstitutional
This section reads
.1n all cases arising under this
statute the state shall have the right
to appeal
! The court held that this would have
1.-THE effect OF placing a person in jeop-
ardy for the same ofense more than
once.
The case decided was that Of Steve
| Bornee, who was indicted in Monon-
| gala county, tried and acquitted. The
court on motion OF the state set the
verdict aside. and another jury tried
| the defendant. This court disagreed
and Bornee was returned to jail. he
then asked for writ of habeas cor
| pus which the court awarded.
! A writ Of haveaS corpus was also
granted IN the case Of Nick Anglion.
Of Mcdowell county, and the writ of
error dismissed IS having been i'm
| property awarded IN the case Of VIII
] liam Rhodes, alias BLACK BABY
j The court refused the writ of hab-
| cas- corpus asked for By Frank Kun
nick. of Marshall county, on the
ground that the constitution inhibition
| had not been violated.
| The opinion of the court which was
! written by President Robinson in the,
/ BoTnee case, Judge Lynch not paFtici-
pating in the case, In so far as the
/ syllabus goes is as follows:
Elk parte Bornee.
Ha heaS cornuS Prisoner DISCHARGED
President Robinson.
/. A constitutional provision de-
rived from the common law and con
| tanned in other constitutions, which
has received settled construction by
judicial decisions prior to its adop-
ton. must be Interpreted In the Light
Of the common law and the general
judicial acceptation OF its meaning.
2 At the common law and under
the Interpretations In American juris-
prudence, protection from second
jeopardy for the same offense includes
immunity from further prosecution
where on valid Indictment IN a.
court Of competent jurisdiction the
accused is acquitted by jury regu-
larIy empaneled and sworn to try the
issue OF his guilt
3. Prior to the adoption of our con-
stitution it was the general judicial
acceptaf1on that an appear by the
state in criminal case involving LIE
or liberty. after one jeopardy had at
tached By the empaneling and swear
ing Of a jury, was yio7atiye OF the
principle that one should not twice
be put In jeopardy for the same Of
lfehSs, and with this meaning the in
| hibttion became part of the const-
tutsona1 Law OF the state.
\ 4 The constitutional amendment
OF 1ST9-S0, having for Its purpose the
revision OF the judicial department,
did not, wherein It provided that this
court should hare such other appel
Late Jurisdiction In both civil and
criminal cases es may be PRESCRIBED
by Law" give legislative power to al
tier the originally understood mean
ing Of jeopardy In the bill Of rights.
5. Acts 1913, Ell. IS. sec q. giving
hight OF appeal to the state, Is uncoa-
stitutional and ine6ecttve IN any I'M
pr3sonment case wherein It operates
to put the accused again In jeopardy
ftor the same onense.
s. One Imprisoned by the judgment
tof court which Is without 3urfsdic-
tIun in the premises because proceed
ing under an uncorstitutssoua1 law
nay he discharged BIZ the O
lhabeaS coruuS.