Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-04-19

! is supposedly provide, "that in ca's'
not capital, the offender shall not be held
to answer any presentment of a grand
| Jury, until the court next sucCee ding that
during which such Pressntment shall
have been made" This law, it 10 con-
! tended, is made the rule of decision By
the aforementioned act of songress, and
was violated by tho refusal to continue
the case of Calender till the next term.
! In answer to this charge this respon-
, dent declares, that he was al the time of
making the aforementioned decision,
wholly ignorant Of any such law of Vir-
! ginia as that in question, that no such
law was adduced or mentioned BY the
counsel Of Calender in support of their
motion for continuance neither when
they frat made it, before this respondent
sitting alone nor when they renewed it,
! after Judge Griffin had taken his seat in
court; that no such va. mentioned BY
judge Griffin who concurred in sverrul.,
ing the motion for continuance and or.
derinH on the trial which he could not
have done had he known that such law
exi'ted, or considered it AZ applicable to
the case and that this respondent never
heard of any such law, until the articles
. of impeachment now under considerable
/ on were reported in the course Of the
! present session of Congress, by COM
mittee of the House Of Representative
A Judge is certainly bound to use all
proper and rcasona Bile means of obtain
ing knowledge Of the laws which he is
! appointed to administer; but after the
/ use Of such means, to overlook, misun-
| derstand, or remain ignorant of some
particular law, is at all times pardona.
bic error. 1t is much more so il the
| case OF a Judge of the supreme court Of
the United States, holdinsa circuit court
in particular state, with which he is a
stranger, and with the local laws of
which he could have en- loved bu, very
imperfect opportunities Of becoming ae-
qnainted. 1t W., torcseen b% congress,
in establishing the circuit courts Of the
United States, that difficulties and in
convenience must frequently arise from
this source, and to obviate such difficult
ties it was provided, that the district
Judge of each state who having been a
resident Of the state AND practitioner in
its courts, had ell the necessary means
of becoming acquainted with its local
laws, should form part Of the circuit
court in his own state. The Judge of
the supreme court is expected, with rea-
son, 70 be well versed in the general
t1ws but the local laws of the state form
the peculiar province Of the district
Judge, who NAV be justly considered ss
particularly responsible for their due OBJ.
servance. If, in the case in question,
tkfs~respondent overlooked or misun-
derstood any locaI!aw ofthe state of Vir-
sinia, which ought to have governed tn.
case, it wa, equally overlooked and mis-:
Understood not only by the prisoners
counsel who made the motion, and whose
peculiar duty it was to know the law and
bring it into the view of the court, but
also by the district judge, who had the
best opportunities OF knowing and un-
derstandingi., and n whom, Heverths-
less, this Oversight, or mistake is eonsl-
dered as a veAal errour, while in this
respondent it made the ground ola cri-
minal charge.
ITO BE co7tinued.1