The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-04


The next charge to be inquired into is that
itatedin the third article. in rejecting the evil
dence of Colonel Taylor, a material witneis in
favor of the defendant, on the pretence that he
could not prove the truth OF the whole of one
charge. In this inftance the Judge aeied con-
,rary TO all former precedents in courts of iuf-
tee, and without the ihadow OF law or reafon
tojutity his conduct. Not folitary cafe could
be tated by any ofthe witneiIes of ii,nilar con,
duct IN judge. The rule here adopted, with re-
gard to the admiEbility of evidence would de-
prive the jury of their undoub.ed right to de-
eide on the credibility and weight of evidence,
| as well as on the extent 10 which il proved the
matter in quefion would transfer in Glb
Rance this right TO the court, and thereby
make to its very centre the fabrick 70 uitly nd
| rnired and held 70 facred, Of trial BY fu,,y. 1t
would make it necellary for the party TO pre-
! lent to the court, all the evidence relied upon
to make out his cafe. This evidence the court
or Judge would frf deliberately examine, COM
pare 1t with the charges or cafe to be fupport-
CO. and If 1t did not, in his opinion, prove the
wHoie OF one charge, go the whole extent df
| the cafe to he efabliihed by it, he would re;eet
| 1t, and not permit the Jury to hearit. Tb;e
would "trip the jury of the very preroeatiye
that renders this kind ftrial TO much fuperio.
to all others, that of deciding on the wei,b,
| ' ". LIEUT. Oh S'ideHCe. here is maDfrC
diitinction between the right which iude- b,s
TO decide upon the ad;ni.iibility of evidence. on
the ground of IFS being proper or irnproDer sc
cordIng to the ehablitlied rules of law, and m.
right here afiumed of deciding upon the extent
10 which iuch evidence, that is admitted 70 r..
tate to the matter in curhon, will 20 TO fi,-ror+
the CAFE: the former is the exercife of no
per authority to prevent the admiI;on Of ~
traneous and improper matter, wholly irrsir-
want TO the matter in queGion the Iat.-ris an
arbitrary aiiumption ofpower, TO decid,. ON ,b,.
extent to which evidence admitted to he roll
'aht' at leait IN Tome degree, would 70 70
prove the matter in queftion; and is n dire
| innovation on the moi facred privilege j, ne
jjury. Nothing can be more abfurd and da,y--
rous, than the coniequences that would Aov
! from iuch doctrine. TIE Judge would fri
weigh the evidence himfe,f, rneafure IFS .xtert
reject IT at peafure, and call this 4 trial h, =,
ry. But mutt here be permitted to no,j,e
the reaioning reforted 10 by the iudgr in vic
aniwer, TO execute his conduct on this occaGor.
which is as dangerous and abfilrd, in its CONT
quences, AS 1t is fubtiIe and evafive. It is Ma
REQ ny the Judge, that the plea of notification
n'uit ahiwer the whole charge, or it is bad on
| the demurrer; and that when the matter Of do
se"ce may De given IN evidence without being
| formally pleaded, the fame rules prevail. The
doctrine ofth judge would require the n3rtv
to Thew, that the evidence he offered wopjd 20,
yer the whole of his cafe, with the fame exatf-
nefs and Formally that he would ile a r,;sa to
'V"'a =" heinr held bad on demurrer tbrs
rn",'I."w"g down the province of the iu,,-. and
| iu9lecung the decihon ofall the facts as ven as
,Ne ID" 10 the court. There is no rule of law
70 an l'ich d proceeding, and it is mani
10y ,""'idrF 10 all Teaioning on the fuhic6f
ne pea, IN order TO be good, NUT fa+e .,,f.
ter iufiicient iuGify that part of the cbsroa
or tult to which it is put in the demurrer "A
mts all the facts fated IN the plea that are wei
pleaded, but cannot admit facts thar are NOT
itated mt therefore the plea NUT an3ear -
contain iuflicient matter Of iuHidcation. nr i
will be held bad on demurrer but no f,rb roll.
was ever heard ofbefore to apply to evidence
offered to jury. They aloue are .be rro,,..,
and only tribunal to decide whether The evi.
oence offered and given is fnfhcent to prove
tee whole matter IN diipnte or not ard if the
jury De deprived of this right, there is nofbin,
! left them that deferves the name of a trial
| The judge inIins, ifhe was miaaken # u,o
an error ofjudgment. This cannot be prer,rn.
ed. Ignorance of the law is no execute in sno
man but in character of fuch HIGH Ieo,l
| Handing and known abilities as that offbe actn.
fed, 1t is totally inadmiifblc and not 70 he IRE
iumed. How could any Judge with nnriabt
! intentions commit 70 many errors, or Hit rr,,n
10 many INTAKES IN the couris of one trial. as
are manifef liz that of Calender. They NM
have been the refult of delign, and prcde.
termination TO hear down all oppoftion in or.
der 10 convict and punih the defendant.
But it is ftated that judge Griffin corcurred
with him in opinion, and this is infiffed man
by the accuied In different parts Of HIS anfger
as an excnfe for the errors he committed. IT, &c
he fates, they were errors. This fse;,,s r., I've =
kind of forlorn hope reforted to, when all ofbe,
expedients fail. To this argument of the ;udce
would in this place anfwer once for al1. fk,t !,
can be no execute for him, nor any Notification
Of bis offences, that another has been ec,1s,l,,
guilty with liimfef; and il mutt froroIv Iroye
the weakness of his defence to relv upon th;e
ground. Though judge Griffin has NOT VET
been called to an account for his conduf9 nn
this location, that is no reafon why he 1,o,,id |
not hereafter he made to anfwer for il. The
nation has not faid he was innocent, or that he |
will not be proceeded dgana for this condn,9 !
and there is no limitation of time that ,vouI5 |
icreen him from the effects If charges of tbie |
kind, if they fh0ud be brought forward and
Imported againh him hereafter. no Ground
of excuie therefore can arifc from the circum- |
fance Of Judge Griffin not having been called
upon to aniwer for his conduct in this tefpeq. |