Case ID: va_45/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Tiernan.
    (Absent Clopton and Wilson, J’s.)
    1847. December Term.
    
    1. It is not necessary to the validity of a presentment by a grand jury, that it should appear on the record book in extenso.
    
    2. The record says, “A presentment for unlawful gaming against J T.” This is sufficient.
    3. A presentment for unlawful gaming by playing at cards, and betting on the sides and hands of those that then and there did play, is not objectionable for duplicity.
    At the April term of the Circuit Court for the county of Cabell, the grand jury found a presentment against John Tiernan, for that at a time and place therein mentioned he “did unlawfully gamble by playing at a game of cards, and then and there unlawfully did bet and wager on the sides and hands of those that then and there did play, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c.
    At the October term of the Court the defendant appeared by his attorney and moved the Court to quash the presentment, on the ground that there were two separate and distinct offences charged in the presentment. And he also moved the Court to dismiss the proceedings in the cause, on the ground that there was no sufficient record of the alleged presentment.
    The record after giving the names of the grand jury, stated, that they had been sworn and charged, and retired to consider of their presentments and indictments, “ and after some time returned into Court with a presentment for unlawful gaming against John Tiernan.” This presentment is noticed on the record in the following words: “ A presentment for unlawful gaming against John Tiernan.”
    The Court, with the consent of the defendant, adjourned to this Court the following questions:
    
      1. Is it necessary to the validity of a presentment for a misdemeanor, or other criminal offence, that it should appear upon the record book of the Court in extenso ?
    
    , * 2. Is the record in this case of the finding of the presentment sufficient ? .
    3. Ought the presentment aforesaid to be quashed for its alleged duplicity ?
   By the Court.

This Court is of opinion, and doth decide:

• 1st. That it is not necessary to the validity of a presentment by the grand jury, that it should appear upon the record book of the Court in extenso.

2d. That the record in this case-of the finding of the presentment is sufficient.

3d. That the presentment in this case ought not to be quashed for duplicity. Which is ordered to be certified, &c.