The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1915-05-29
()9 |NN)H6
BY the State Supreme Court in
Several Cases Involving The
Yost Prohibition Law.
sion.
ts,re,.l 70 RVS 4ErrerAn,

CHARLESTON May 2e.-The SUI
preme court has disposed Of three
cases. in which were involved ques-
t:onss arising under the prohibition
laws OF the state.
The court held that section %, chap
ter II, acts 1913, was unconstitutional.
This section reads:
IN all cases arising under this
statue the state shah have the right
to appeal.
The court held that this would have
the effect OF placing a person in jeop-
! ardy for the same o6ense more than
once.
The case decided was that of Steve
Bornee, who was indicted in Monon-
gala county. tried and acquitted. 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 AnS1ion,
/ of Mcdowell county, and the writ Of
terror dismissed as having been inn
property awarded in the case of VIII
liam Rhodes, alias BLACK Saby.
! The court refused the WIZ of hab-
| cas- corpus dShe0 1OK ny liam 1ASA1
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
Bornee case. Judge Lynch not partici-
pafins in the case, in so far as The
syllabus goes is as follows:
Eek parte Bornee-
| HabeaS corpus. Prisoner discharged.
President Robinson
! L. A constitutional provision de-
rived from the common law and con
! tanned in other constitutions, which
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
court of competent jurisdiction the
accused is acquitted by a Jury regu-
larry empaneled and sworn to try the
issue OF his guilt
3. Prior to the adoption OF our con-
stitution it was the general judicial
acceptation that an appeal by the
state in a criminal case involving life
or liberty. after one jeopardy had at
tacded by the empaneling and swear
ing Of a jury, was violatiye of the
principle that one should not twice
be put in jeopardy for the same Of
tense, and with this meaning the in
hfbirion became part of the constt-
| tutsonal law Of the state
& The constitutional amendment
OF 1880, having for its purpose the
revision OF the judicial department,
! did not. wherein It provided that tbs
court should have such other appel
late jurisdiction in both civil and
criminal cases as may be prescribed
by law give legislative power to al
ter the originally understood mean
ing of jeopardy in the bill of rights.
5 Acts 1913, ch. 10. sec ~, gtvsns
right OF appeal to The state, Is uncon-
stituttona1 and ineffective In any I'M
prisonment case wherein it operates
to put the accused again IN jeopardS
for the same onense.
I s. One Imprisoned by the judgment
OF a court which Is without 3urtsdlc-
dion In the premises because proceed
| ing under an unconstitutional law
may be discharged By the Wit o.