Case ID: va_66/html/0640-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "* ANDERSON, L,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Tremaine v. Commonwealth.
    January Term, 1875,
    Richmond.
    Corporation Courts — Jurisdiction — Statute. — Under tlie act of April 2,1870, ch. 38, §§ 6 & 7, Sess. Acts 1869-’70, Corporation courts in cities and towns having- a population of more than five thousand, have the same jurisdiction to try offences committed within their respective limits as Circuit and County courts had; and the act of April 3, 1873, to regulate and define the jurisdiction of the County and Circuit courts does not apply to or affect the jurisdiction of said Corporation courts.
    At the October term 1874, of the Corporation court of the city of Alexandria, Louisa Tremaine, alias Nettie Green, was indicted for the murder of Samuel Eichelberger. She was arraigned at the same term of the court; and upon her arraignment she filed a special plea to the jurisdiction of the Corporation court to try her for the crime of which she was indicted. To this special plea the attorney for the commonwealth demurred; and the court sustained the demurrer.
    On the trial the jury found the prisoner guilty of murder in the second degree, and fixed the term of her imprisonment in the penitentiary at seven years. She thereupon moved the court for a new trial; but the court overruled the motion, and sentenced the prisoner in accordance with the verdict: and the prisoner excepted. The evidence is set out in the bill of exceptions; and shows that the deceased was killed by the prisoner; but the witnesses, who were numerous, give different accounts of the provocation. Upon the application of the prisoner, this court awarded a writ of error.
    C. E. Stuart, for the prisoner.
    The Attorney General', for the commonwealth.
   * ANDERSON, L,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of opinion that the Corporation courts, in cities or towns containing a population of five thousand, have the same jurisdiction, bjr act of assembly approved April 2, 1870, to try offences committed within their respective limits, that either the Circuit courts or the County courts then had to try offences within the counties in which respectively they had jurisdiction. (Acts of Assembly 1869-’70, ch. 38, 6 and 7, p. 36.) And that the act approved April 2, 1873, “to regulate and define the jurisdiction of the County and Circuit courts,” &c., which, in effect, takes from the County courts their jurisdiction for the trial of presentments, informations’ and indictments, which was conferred by section 4 of the aforesaid act of 1870, and invests the same exclusively in the Circuit 'courts, does not divest the said Corporation courts of any part of their aforesaid jurisdiction; the term “exclusive” being used in said act with reference to the County courts, as appears evident from the title and scope of the act. And, consequently, that there is no error in the judgment of the Corporation court of Alexandria, sustaining the demurrer to the plea of the plaintiff in error to its jurisdiction.

The court is further of opinion that as it is peculiarly the province of the jury to weigh the testimony and to decide upon the facts of the case; and it not appearing from the evidence certified by the court, that the verdict of the jury is plainly contrary to the evidence, the court below did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. The court is therefore of opinion that the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.