388 Casas ruled and adjudged in the 1798. On thele faéts, AI. Levy, for the defendant, obferved, that VV`-’ it was not fullicient, for the purpofe of conviction, to prove that the defendant was guilty of an oilcnee; but the olfence mult, alfo, appearto be legall defined, and it mult have been committed within the jurifdiciion of the Court, which under- takes to try and punilh it. The 8th article of the amendments to the Federal Conllitution (3 I'ol. Stuff': Edit. p. 456) provides, indeed, exprefsly, that •• in all criminal profecutions, the ac- culed {hall enjoy the right to a fpeedy and public trial, by an impartial ]ury of the State, or Dillriét, wherein the crime {hall have been committed, 8:c.” Now, in the prefcnt inliance, there is no proof that the criminal letter was written in Pum- _[;-Itvaniu; and the proof of publication and delivery is at Bur- Iingrm, in New-j'.n_yZy. The lirll: count of the indi€}ment, therefore, mult necerlirrily fail; and unlefs he is eonvi£l:ed upon that, he cannot be conriéted on the fccond count; which is at- tempted to be fupportetl, merely by evidence of recognizing in P/:iIm!¢{ol•i.1, a corrupt oder previoully made in another place, . out of the jurifdiéion of the Court. - - The Attomey of the Diltriét Rawk} replied, that acc¤r• ding to the decilion in Dr. Hmz¢y’: cafe {Burr. j the letter being dated at Pl·ilar!e.QpLin, is, in itfelf, fullicient proof that it was written there. But the letter was put into the Brylolpoll ollice by the defendant; and, confequently, by his aft, done in .Penqbi·Iunn.?rr, it was caufed to be delivered to Mr. Cox: at Bur- lington. T he oppolite doélrine, indeed, would fumilh abfolute impunity to every oilender of this kind, whofe crime was not commenced and confummated in the fame Dillri€t: for, the defendant, it is laid, cannot be punifhed in Pmrg/jlvauiu, be- eaufe the letter was delivered to Mr. Cox: in 1'o·tv-_7¢•_·/`ey; and, by :1 parity of reafoning, he could not be punilhed in New- _7t·r·,iy, beeaufe it was neither written, nor delivered by him, within the jurililiflion of that State. '1`o (hew that the ollizr of a bribe is iudiétable, though the bribe is not accepted, he referred to 4 Burr. 2494. 1 Ld. Raym. r 377. - Br THE C0urt·r:—-'i`he letter appears by its date to have been written in ]’ervyj·!·:·nnin; and it is actually delivered by the defendant at a polt oilicc in P¢mw`·l·vnnia. The writing and the tlelivery at the l‘0lt·Ollice (thus putting it in the way to be delivered to Jllr. Cm-) mult be conlidered, in elibét, as one aEl:; and, as far as rehreéts the defendant, it is confummatcd · within the jurifdiétion of the Court. We, therefore, think, that the {irit count in the indi•Slm·.·nt is fulliciently fupported. But, on the fecontl count, there can be no pofliblc doubt, if the teftimony is credited. The defendant, in the city of Phi- Lrdehlritt, unequivocally repeats, in words, the corrupt olfer, which he had prcvioully made to M`r. Cox: in writing. Vstditt—Guilty on both counts of the Indictment. - Da//at
�
