§ 310. Gaming, etc. A state may make it an offense to maintain a pool room within its borders in which pools are sold or bets registered on races run in another state.64

65

A person may be convicted of operating a pool room in a state where the room is located and bets are received and paid, although the bets or offers to bet are transmitted by the defendant by telegram to a person outside of the state." And where a bet is made in one state and the parties then go to another state for the purpose of putting up the money so as to evade the laws of the first-named state, and afterwards return to the first-named state, they may be convicted of betting in the first-named state.66

The offense of offering to purchase grain on a margin is not committed until the offer is received by the person to whom it is sent. Hence where such an offer is sent by telegram from one state to another, the offense, if any, is committed in the latter state.67 But the offense of keeping a place wherein is conducted the buying and selling of options or futures is committed in the county where the place is maintained and the orders to buy and sell are received and the margins deposited, though the order is telephoned to the proprietor in another county and there accepted or rejected.68

§ 311. Homicide-Injury on high seas or in one country or state, and death in another country or state. Under the common law, if a blow was given or poison administered in a foreign country or on the high seas (and not on an English ship),69 and the person stricken or poisoned died in England, the homicide could not be punished in England, for the English courts could not take cognizance of the injury. Nor could a homicide be punished in England, when the injury was inflicted there, and the death occurred in a foreign country or on the high seas, for it was supposed that the courts could not take cognizance of the death.70 In the absence of a

64 State v. Oldham, 200 Mo. 538, 98 S. W. 497; Ex parte Walsh, 59 Tex. Cr. 409, 129 S. W. 118; and see $1074 et seq., infra.

65 State v. Maloney, 115 La. 498, 39 So. 539.

66 Com. v. Collier, 181 Ky. 319, 204 S. W. 74; Com. v. Crass, 180 Ky. 794, 203 S. W. 708.

67 State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 39.

68 Weare Commission Co. v. People, 209 Ill. 528, 70 N. E. 1076, aff'g 111 Ill. App. 116; State v. Kentner, 178 Mo. 487, 77 S. W. 522.

69 As to offenses committed on vessels, see § 283, supra.

70 3 Inst. 48; 1 Hale P. C. 426; 2 Hale P. C. 163.

statute on the subject, the same doctrine has been recognized in this country in the case of a death here from an injury inflicted in a foreign country or on the high seas,71 and also in the case of an injury inflicted here, and causing death in a foreign country.72 It has also been held that, in the absence of statute, a person who administers poison or otherwise inflicts an injury in one state or territory, resulting in death in another state or territory, cannot be punished for homicide in the latter,78 but most courts hold that he can be punished in the former, on the ground that the homicide is committed where the injury is inflicted, and the death is a mere consequence,74 although there is some authority to the contrary.75

In many jurisdictions, statutes have been enacted expressly covering these cases. The statute of Geo. II, c. 21, provided that, where any person feloniously stricken or poisoned at any place out of England died of the same in England, or, being feloniously stricken or poisoned in England, died of such stroke or poisoning out of England, an indictment might be found in the country where

71 See State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499.

72 See Com. v. Linton, 2 Va. Cas. 205.

73 Com. v. Apkins, 148 Ky. 207, 146 S. W. 431, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 822, Ann. Cas. 1913 E 465; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; Edge v. State, 117 Tenn. 405, 99 S. W. 1098, 10 Ann. Cas. 876. And see State v. Kelly, 76 Me. 331.

Where defendant administered poi son to a woman in Ohio, and believing her to be dead, took her to Kentucky and there cut off her head for the purpose of preventing her identification, and she was in fact killed by the cutting off of her head, it was held that defendant might be prosecuted in Kentucky. Jackson v. Com., 100 Ky. 239, 38 S. W. 422, 1091, 66 Am. St. Rep. 336.

74 Alabama. Green v. State, 66 Ala. 40, 41 Am. Rep. 744.

California. People v. Gill, 6 Cal.

637.

Missouri.

State v. Garrison, 147 Mo. 548, 49 S. W. 508.

New Jersey. Hunter v. State, 40
N. J. L. 495; State v. Carter, 27 N. J.
L. 499.

Oklahoma. Moran v. Territory, 14
Okla. 544, 78 Pac. 111; Havill v.
United States, 5 Okla. Cr. 334, 115
Pac. 119.
75 United

States V. Bladen, 1
Cranch C. C. 548, Fed. Cas. No. 14,605;
Com. v. Linton, 2 Va. Cas. 205.

the death or the cause of death respectively occurred.76 It has been held that this statute is not in force in this country." But statutes have been enacted in some of the states providing for punishment in the state where death ensues there from an injury inflicted on the high seas, or in a foreign country or another state,78 or where the injury is inflicted in the state, and the death occurs without the state 79 and such statutes have generally been held to be constitutional.

In England it has been held that the statute only applies where the homicide is committed by a British subject.80 But in this country similar statutes have been held applicable to foreigners and citizens of other states.81

§ 312. Injury in one county and death in another. At an early period in England, if a wound was inflicted or poison administered in one county, and the party died in consequence thereof in another, it was doubted by some whether the homicide could be punished at all, because the offense was not complete in either county, and the jury could inquire only of what happened in their own county.81a

But the common opinion was that the offender might be indicted, tried and punished in the county where the mortal blow was given, as "the death was but a consequence, and might be found in another county. 82 And some of the courts in this country have taken this view.83 In England, by the statute of 2 & 3 Edw. VI. c. 24, the offense was made indictable and punishable in the county where the death happened.84 And this statute is old enough to be a part of our common law, and has been applied and enforced as such by some of our courts.8 85 In some states statutes to the same

Oklahoma. Albright v. Territory, And see State v. Hall, 114 N. C. 11 Okla. 497, 69 Pac. 789; Loyd v. 909, 19 S. E. 602, 28 L. R. A. 59; 41 State, 6 Okla. Cr. 76, 116 Pac. 959. Am. St. Rep. 822; Moore v. State, State, 9 37 Tex. Cr. 552, 40 S. W. 287; Ex parte McNeeley, 36 W. Va. 84, 14

effect have been enacted,86 while in others statutes make the offense indictable and punishable in the county where the blow was given, or injury otherwise inflicted,87 or in either county.88

§ 313. Act in one country, state or county taking effect in another. When a person in one country, state, or county does an act there which takes effect and causes death in another country, state, or county, he commits the homicide in the latter. Thus, if a person in one state shoots across the state line, and kills a person in another state, the murder is committed in the latter state, and not in the former, and he may be punished in the latter state if he can be apprehended there,89 but cannot be punished in the former