Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/610

 The Lawyer s Rasy Chair. his cab; consequently those decisions did not apply which hold that a servant commits larceny by misappropriation of money entrusted to him to get change or pay his mas ter's debts; and apparently Mr. Bushby was right in say ing that he was not a bailee, like Hellencontre, since the article entrusted to him was not returnable in specie, and the object of entrusting it to him was ultimately to obtain the change less the proper fare."

This is certainly not the law of America, and it cannot be law anywhere. Such quibbling is not law, and is quite sufficient to bring lawyers and judges into contempt. The reader will find the American law strongly to the contrary in Hildebr.ind v. People, 56 N. Y. 394; 15 Am. Rep. 435; State v. Anderson, 25 Minn. 66; 33 Am. Rep. 455; Justices v. Henderson, 90 N. Y. 12; 43 Am. Rep135; Murphy v. People, 104 Ill. 528; State v. Ducker, 8 Oreg. 394; 34 Am. Rep. 590. In the State of New York the case is now covered by the Penal Code. ASSAULT AT LONG RANGE. — A novel and inter esting case is Simpson v. State, Georgia Supreme Court, May, 1893, 17 S. E. Rep. 984, which holds that — "The offence of shooting at another is committed in this State when one in the State of South Carolina, with out malice aforethought, but not in his own defence, or under other circumstances of justification, aims and fires a pistol at another who at the time is in this State, although the ball misses him, and strikes the water in this State near the boat which he occupies."

The court said : — "Of course the presence of the accused within this State is essential to make his act one which is done in this State, but the presence need not be actual. It maybe constructive. The well-established theory of the law is that, where one puts in force an agency for the commission of crime, he, in legal contemplation, accompanies the same to the point where it becomes effectual. Thus a burglary may be committed by inserting into a building a hook or other contrivance by means of which goods arc withdrawn therefrom; and there can be no doubt that under these circumstances the burglar, in legal contempla tion, enters the building. So if a man in the State of South Carolina criminally fires a ball into the State of Georgia, the law regards him as accompanying the ball, and as being represented by it, up to the point where it strikes. If an unlawful shooting occurred while both the parties were in this State, the mere fact of missing would not render the person who shot any the less guilty. Con sequently, if one shooting from another State goes, in a legal sense, where his bullet goes, the fact of his missing the object at which he aims cannot alter the legal prin ciple. Cases are numerous in which it has been held that where a person wounds another in one State or country, but the person wounded dies elsewhere, beyond its terri torial boundaries, the courts of the State or country in which death occurred have jurisdiction to try the offence. 72

569

A leading case on this line is that of Tylor v. People (8 Mich. 320), in which there was a dissenting opinion by Justice Campbell. The ruling of the majority of the court, however, was approved in the case of Com. v. Macloon (101 Mass. I). Justice Gray, who delivered the opinion in the latter case, says, on page 7, that if one's 'unlawful act is the efficient cause of the mortal injury, his personal presence at the time of its beginning, its con tinuance, or its result, is not essential. He may be held guilty of homicide by shooting, even if he stands afar off, out of sight, or in another jurisdiction;' and the words quoted are followed by apt illustrations. On page 17 of the same report Justice Gray disapproves the dissenting opinion of Justice Campbell above mentioned. There is, however, a clear distinction between cases like the one just cited, where a wound is inflicted in one jurisdiction and death ensues in another, and cases like the present, where the accused in one State puts in operation a force which takes effect in another. On page 343 of 8 Mich, (supra) this distinction is clearly stated by Justice Camp bell. He says the doctrine of constructive presence is not applicable to a case like that with which he was then dealing, and then uses the following language which sus tains our ruling in the case at bar. Speaking of construc tive presence, he says: 'All that it amounts to is that the crime shall be regarded as committed where the inju rious act is done. A wounding must, of course, be done where there is a person wounded, and the criminal act is the force against his person. That is the immediate act of the assailant, whether he strikes with a sword or shoots a gun; and he may very reasonably be held present where his forcible act becomes directly operative.'"

This doctrine is illustrated in the recent case of Dr. Graves, who murdered a woman in Colorado by poison which he mailed to her in Massachusetts, and he was convicted in Colorado.

COURTING VISITS. — There is a very impolitic and immoral decision in Clark?>. Hodges, Vermont Su preme Court, May, 1893, which should be studied by every young man disposed to go a-courting, at least in Vermont: — "The plaintiff was permitted to show by a neighbor that during the period of defendant's visits he frequently saw a light in the parlor on Saturday evenings and Sun day evenings. The defendant insists that this was error, on the ground that it does not appear that the defendant was in any way connected with these lights by the testi mony of other witnesses. It appears that there was evi dence tending to show that the family was not in the habit of passing the evening in the parlor, and that it was the room made use of by the plaintiff when receiving the defendant's visits. If it had further appeared that there was evidence tending to show that the defendant's visits were ordinarily made on the evenings named, it would not have been questioned but that the testimony regarding the lights was admissible to establish a corroborating cir cumstance. Assuming that this further showing was re quired to properly connect the defendant with the lights,