Case ID: va_4/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WHITE, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*NOVEMBER TERM, 1822.
    JUDGES PRESENT.
    
      White, Dade,
    
    
      Brockenbrough, Saunders,
    
    
      Smith, Daniel,
    
    
      Allen, Semple, R. E. Parker.
    
    The Commonwealth v. Benjamin Long, Jun.
    Grand Juror--Owner of Hill — Pléa in Abatement. — A plea in abatement, that one of the Grand Jury is the owner of a Mill, is good.
    Presentment — Two Pleas in Abatement —Two pleas in abatement to the same presentment, are admissible.
    This was a Case adjourned by the Superior Court of Caroline. The Defendant was presented for unlawful Gaming, and he pleaded two pleas in abatement, which were duly sworn to : 1. That Hay Battaile, one of the Grand Jurors by whom the Presentment was made, was not a freeholder; on which plea the Attorney for the Commonwealth took issue. 2. That Birkenhead Boutwell, another of the Grand Jurors, was the owner of a Mill in the said county ; to the reception of which second plea, the Attorney for the Commonwealth objected. Whereupon, the Court adjourned these questions to this Court : 1. Can the fact, that' a Grand Juror is the owner of a Mill, be píéáded in abatement of a Presentment made by the Grand Jury ? 2. If it can be so pleaded, is it proper to admit it, the other plea in abatement having been at the same time pleaded, and issue taken thereon ?
    The Law directs that “ the Sheriff shall summon twenty-four of the most discreet freeholders of the county, being citizens of this Commonwealth, and not Constables, nor «Ordinary-keepers, nor Surveyors of highways, nor owners or occupiers of a Mill,” who shall be a Grand Jury. 1 Rev. Code, of 1819, ch. 75, § 1.
    
      
       Oram! Jury — Want of Qualification — How Objection Made. — On this subject, see foot-note to Com. v. Cherry, 2 Va. Cas. 20. The principal case is also cited on this subject in Com. v. Adkinson, 2 Va. Cas. 515; Booth v. Com., 16 Gratt. 523; Tilley v. Com., 89 Va. 153, 15 S. E. Rep. 526; U. S. V. Richardson, 28 Fed. Rep. 67.
    
   WHITE, J.,

delivered the judgment of the Court:

• 1. That the fact, that a Grand Juror is the owner of a Mill, can be pleaded in abatement to a Presentment made by the Grand Jury. 2. That it is proper to admit that plea, although another plea in abatement was at the same time pleaded, and issue joined thereon.

Note (In edition of 1853). — It is thus decided, that the disqualification of being Constables, owners of Mills, &c. is put on the same footing as the qualification of Citizenship, and Freehold. A Presentment, made by a Grand Juror who possesses the former, as well as the'one whowantsthe latter, maybe avoided by plea in abatement. See the Case of William Cherry, laboriously árgued and decided by the Court, ante, p. 20.