An offence committed at any inappreciable distance from a county line may be tried in either county; Buckrice v. People, 110 Ill. 29; Bayliss v. People, 46 Mich. 221, 9 N. W. 257; so of a distance of 500 yards; People v. Davis, 36 N. Y. 77; and (by statute) of a dis tance of 100 rods; Bayliss v. People, 46 Mich. 221, 9 N. W. 257. Statutory provisions are usually made. Where the blow was struck in one county and the person dies in another county, the trial must be in the former; State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 N. W. 650; Riley v. State, 9 Hnmph. (Tenn.) 646; Moran v. Terri tory, 14 Okl. 544, 78 Pac. 111; contra, Nash v. State, 2 G. Greene (Ia.) 286 ; Corn. v. Jones, 118 Ky. 889, 82 S. W. 643, 4 Ann. Cas. 1192 (where the accused was in the latter county). It is held that the trial may in such case be in either; State v. Jones, 38 La. Ann. 792.
One stealing a horse may be tried in the county into which he takes it; Rex v. Peas, 1 Root (Conn.) 69; Whizenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383; so of a steer; State v. Williams, 147 Mo. 14, 47 S. W. 891; Hurlburt v. State, 52 Neb. 428, 72 N. W. 471; Rose State (Tex.) 65 S. W. 911. That he can be tried in either county, see Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918, 41 S. E. 55.
Where a murder is planned and prepara tions are made, including control of the vic tim, but the actual killing takes place in an other county, the courts of either county have jurisdiction; People v. Thorn, 12 N. Y. Cr, R. 236, 47 N. Y. Supp. 46. Where one in California prepared there a poisonous article and sent it to another in Delaware, who was killed by it, this was an offence committed in California; People v. Botkin, 132 Cal. 231, 64 Pac. 286, 84 Am. St. Rep. 39.
The sixth amendment to the federal consti tution provides for the right of trial of a criminal offence in a district where it is com mitted ; there is no constitutional provision for a trial in the place of residence of the ac cused; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 30 Sup. Ct. 249, 54 L.' Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112.
The trial of any crime committed on the high seas, or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any state or district, shall be in the dis trict where the offender is found or into which he is just brqught; U. S. R. S. § 730 (now Jud. Code § 41).
Where a continuing crime runs through several jurisdictions, the offence is committed in each; Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 153 Fed. 1, 82 C. C. A. 135, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400.
Where the place of the act and of an un lawful combination under the U. S. R. S. § 5440 were in different federal districts, the provisions of section 731 (now Jud. Code § 42) apply and create a jurisdiction in either district ; Hyde v. U. S., 225 U. S. 347, 32 Sup. Ct. 793, 56 L. Ed. 1114, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 614.
The offense of importing an alien woman for prostitution is complete the moment she is landed in the United States and is triable at the place where she is landed; Ex parte Lair, 177 Fed. 789.
The federal court at the place where the agreement was made for compensation to perform services forbidden by U. S. R. S. § 1782, has jurisdiction to try the offense, even if the agreement was negotiated or tentatively accepted at another place, and although the defendant may not, at that time, have been at that place ; Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 345, 26 Sup. Ct. 688, 50 L. Ed. 1057, 6 Ann. Cas. 392.
Statement of venue in the margin and reference thereto in the body of an indict ment is a sufficient statement of venue ; State v. Conley, 39 Me. 78 ; McDonald v. State, 8 Mo. 283 ; and the venue need not be stated in the margin if it appears from the indictment ; Corn. v. Quin, 5 Gray (Mass.) 478 ; State v. Powers, 25 Conn. 48.
A state statute providing for a change of venue upon the application of the state does not violate the right of trial by jury of common law ; Barry v. Traux, 13 N. D. 131, 99 N. W. 769, 65 L. R. A. 762, 112 Am. St. Rep. 662, 3 Ann. Cas. 191; People v. Fuhr mann, 103 Mich. 593, 61 N. W. 865 ; State v. Miller, 15 Minn. 344 (Gil. 277) ; Com. v. Davidson, 91 Ky. 162, 15 S. W. 53 ; People v. Harris, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 150 ; Price v. State, 8 Gill (Md.) 295; and this view seems to have the weight of authority, although other cases hold that the constitutional right includes that of having a jury of the county in which the offence was committed ; Peo ple v. Powell, 87 Cal. 348, 25 Pac. 481, 11 L.
R. A. 75; Kirk v. State, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 344 ; although this right was held to be one which the accused could waive as well as insist upon ; State v. Potter, 16 Kan. 80.
Want of any venue is a cause for demur rer ; Briggs v. Bank, 5 Mass. 94 ; or abate ment ; Archb. Civ. Pl. 78 ; or arrest of judgment ; Searcy v. State, 4 Tex. 450. So defendant may plead or demur to a wrong venue ; Blake v. Freeman, 13 Me. 130. Change of venue may be made by the court to prevent, and not to cause, a defeat of jus tice ; 3 Bla. Com. 294 ; Hungerford v. Cush ing, 2 Wis. 397 ; Curran v. Beach, 20 Ill. 259 ; both in civil ; Witter v. Taylor,. 7 Ind. 110 ; Weeks v. State, 31 Miss. 490 ; and criminal cases ; Ex parte Banks, 28 Ala. 28 ; State v. Windsor, 5 Har. (Del.) 512 ; and such change is a matter of right on compliance with the requirements of the law ; Baldwin v. Marygold, 2 Wis. 419 ; Brennan v. People, 15 Ill. 511; Freleigh v. State, 8 Mo. 606. That such change is a matter of discretion with the court below, see Weeks v. State, 31 Miss. 490; Vaughn v. Hixon, 50 Kan. 773, 32 Pac. 358 ; Thorp v. Bradley, 75 Ia. 50, 39 N. W. 177; King v. State, 91 Tenn. 617, 20 S. W. 169 ; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 9 Sup. Ct. 696, Ed. 110.
See JURISDICTION ; VISNE; TRANSITORY AC TIONS.