ishment did not come within the constitutional prohibition as cruel and unusual.30

A statute of the Territory of New Mexico for horse-stealing imposed the punishment of not less than 30, nor more than 60, lashes on the bare back. Under the provisions organizing the territory, it was provided that the laws passed by the legislative assembly should be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and, if disapproved, should be null and of no effect. The act was submitted to Congress and had never been disapproved. The law was held constitutional.31

JURISDICTION OF COURTS, AS DEPENDING ON THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME IS COMMITTED.

It is a fundamental principle of our system of law that indictable crimes shall be tried by a jury. And it is equally true that this trial must be by a jury of the "vicinage," which with us usually means by a jury of the county in which the crime was committed.32

This is the rule in the several States. The United States does not have jurisdiction by counties, but by judicial districts, into which, for judicial purposes, the United States is divided since juries in the United States are drawn from the district at large. The principle is that an accused person must be tried by a jury summoned from the local jurisdiction in which the crime was committed.33 There are some crimes which may be partly committed in one juris

80 Barker vs. People, 3 Cow., 686.

"Garcia vs. Territory, 1 N. M., 415; Ligan vs. State, 3 Heisk, 159.

"Swart vs. Kimball, 43 Mich., 443; Hill vs. Taylor, 50 Mich., 549.

diction and partly in another, and therefore, may be tried in either. For instance, it is the law with regard to conspiracy that an alleged conspirator may be tried either in the jurisdiction where the conspiracy was entered into, or in any jurisdiction in which any overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy was committed.34 And in embezzlement it is the doctrine of the common law that the accused is subject to prosecution either in the jurisdiction where the embezzlement was actually committed, or in the jurisdiction where he was bound to account, and failed to account, for the money or property which came into his hands by virtue of his employment.35

And in larceny it is held that the thief commits a fresh larceny in every jurisdiction into which he flees with the stolen property in his possession.36 And in homicide it is the prevailing doctrine that the slayer may be prosecuted either in the jurisdiction where the fatal blow was inflicted or where death ensued from it.37

The Massachusetts bill of rights declare that "in criminal prosecutions, the verification of facts in the vicinity where they happen is one of the greatest securities of the life, liberty, and property of the citizen."

"Bloomer vs. State, 48 Md., 521; Com. vs. Gillespie, 7 S. & R., 469.

"Queen vs. Rogers, 3 Queen's Bench, Div. 28; 3 Am. Cr., 503.

State vs. Douglas, 17 Mo., 193; Crow. vs. State, 18 Ala., 541; Com. vs. Rand, 7 Metc., 475. And the same principle has been applied in a case of abduction. The original abduction having taken place in New York, it was held that dissuading the girl in New Jersey from returning to her home amounted to a fresh abduction in New Jersey. State vs. Gordon, 4 Am. Cr., 1.

"Tyler vs. People, 8 Mich., 320; Com. vs. Macloon, 101 Mass., 1; contra Riley vs. State, 9 Humph. (Tenn.), 646; Peo ple vs. Gill, 6 Cal., 637.

Another exception to the rule hereinafter stated arises in

68

But subject to these exceptions the rule must be stated as follows:

Every criminal charge must be prosecuted in the judicial district in which the alleged crime was committed.

It becomes necessary, therefore, to inquire by what principle the locality of a crime is to be fixed.

In the first place it is to be remarked that generally jurisdiction does not depend upon the locality in which the accused is found at the time he set in motion the force which is to effect the crime, but, on the other hand, jurisdiction resides where the intended effect is brought about, or is intended to be brought about.

Therefore, a man may be guilty of a crime in a jurisdiction in which he was never personally present. If a man, near the boundary line of a state, shoots at and injures a man in another state, he is triable in the latter state.38 If a man in Ohio makes false pretenses by letters sent by mail to a merchant in New York and thereby procures the latter to deliver goods to his agent in New York, he is guilty of obtaining goods by false pretenses in New York and not in Ohio.39 If one sends a forged instrument in a letter,

the case of citizens temporarily abroad. Such citizens may be punished for certain acts committed in a foreign country. Thus, a citizen of the United States may be punished for taking a false oath before a consul of the United States while abroad.

38 Com. vs. McCloon, 101 Mass., 1. But if a man receives a mortal wound in one state and dies in another, the murderer must be tried in the state where the wound was inflicted. Stout vs. State, 76 Md.. 317; 9 Am. Cr., 398.

Adams vs. People, 1 Comst. (N. Y.), 173; Norris vs. State, 25 Ohio St., 217; 2 Am. Cr., 85; State vs. Chapin, 17 Ark., 561; State vs. Schaeffer, 89 Mo., 271; 6 Am. Cr., 259; Wilcox vs. Wolze, 34 Ohio St., 520.

to defraud the person to whom it is mailed, he is guilty of the uttering where the letter is received.40 Illustrations might be multiplied, but they are unnecessary. A crime consists of an act and an intent. And an act, as we have seen, is the doing or saying something which does or may produce an effect on a person or thing.41 Since neither the act nor the intent alone constitutes the crime, the crime is committed where they concur, and they concur at the place where the intent is that the act shall take effect. Or, in other words, it is plain, upon reason and authority, that when one intends to commit a crime in New York and sets in motion a force which consummates the crime in New York, he must be held to have committed the crime in New York. And, if he did not intend to commit a crime in Ohio, and did nothing by which a crime in Ohio could be committed, he cannot be charged with having committed a crime in Ohio. The simple and elementary principles of the law are enough to settle most of the questions of this kind which can arise.42

There are some exceptions arising out of the necessity of the case to the rule that every crime must be tried in the judicial district where the crime is committed.

"People vs. Rathburn, 21 Wend., 509. "Ante, p. 00.

There are in most of the states, statutes providing that where a crime is committed on or near the boundary line between two counties, the prosecution may take place in either county. The purpose of these statutes is to avoid difficulties which might arise in proving in which of the two counties the crime was actually committed. When no such difficulty arises the law should not be invoked for the purpose of trying the accused in the wrong jurisdiction and if it is done a conviction in the wrong county will be set aside. Buckrice vs. People, 110 Ill., 29; 4 Am. Cr., 106.

70

The ships of a nation on the high seas are regarded as a part of the national territory and crimes committed upon them are punishable in the national courts.

When a vessel is on the ocean and more than a marine league from the shore, measuring from low water mark, she is on the high seas and beyond the territorial limits of the nation and of any state. In such a case the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to punish crimes committed on board of an American vessel.43

The jurisdiction of the several states which lie upon the shores of the ocean extends to every crime committed within the marine league limit.44 This is also true of those arms of the sea which lie enclosed within the national territory, as in the case of Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, although in some parts it is more than two marine leagues from shore to shore.45

In the case of public ships, such as men of war, the jurisdiction of the national government is paramount and exclusive, wherever they may happen to be, whether on the high seas or in a foreign or domestic port.

U. S. vs. Holmes, 5 Wheat., 412; U. S. vs. Palmer, 3 Wheat., 610. And the rule is the same whether the crime is committed by a citizen or a foreigner. Reg. vs. Lopez, 7 Cox C. C., 431.

"Com. vs. Peters, 12 Metc., 387; U. S. vs. Bevans, 3 Wheat., 336; Manley vs. People, 3 Selden, 295; Com. vs. Games, 2 Va. Cas., 172.

The jurisdiction of the several states abutting on the Great Lakes is not limited by rule above stated, but extends to the boundary line of each of said states. People vs. Tyler, 7 Mich., 160.