The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-16


ticular point OF law, which had been agitated,
or was it general
Mr.. Gooeb. do not know, fir, to wha.
point of law it applied.
Mr.. Harper. Did Judge Chafe confult his
brother Judge (Griifin) on the feveral deciiions
which were made, and did judge Griffin con-
cur in them all
Mr.. Coocb. I think he privately converted
with Judge Griffin on all the points which he
decided do not mean that he coufultcd him
ut every time at which he topped or interrupt
ed the council.
MIR. HARPER. Pray, did Judge Chafc fay to
Mr.. Writ, fit down, or pleaie to take your feat,
fir ;.
Mr.. Coach. think it was, plear' 10 &. 1owr,
fir. think on that ocCafion the Judge was pro-
ceeding TO deliver an opinion of the court, and
that MIR. Writ WIS Handing at the time, ard
tina; the Judge fpoke with view of letting him
have an opportunity of being eafy in his feat.
DAVID ROBERTSON, Gvoyn.
Mr.. Harfrr. Did you attend the trial of
James Thornton Calender, at the circuit court
of the United States, held in Richmond, Virsi-
mia, in May or June, 1900!
Mr.. Robe,f/ox. attended during apart of the
trial, and ! took down what occurred in iho,t
hand. have my original notes with me, rs
well as printed copy. muf however obferve
pond with my 0iort hand notes. There are
four infances OF 2 variation, which have diff.
coveredby comparing 1t recently with my notes.
If may he permitted to have recourie to thoie
papers. can give as faithful narrative, per-
haPs more correct one, than when depending
altogether on my own recollection. The notes
were taken at the time. for nv own amuiement
and without an idea of their being made pub
lie. However, at the reQueft of fone of my
fra Ic ktntr ii, IAt...
following.
MIR. Randoitb. We have no objection To take
the printed tatement as evidence on this occa-
ion.
Mr.. Rohertfon then went on to read the
printed ftatement.
As this ftatement was pubied foen after
the trial, in the newspapers, and was re-pub-
lihed by the committee of enquiry of the houit
of representatives, its infertion on this occalion
has been deemed unnecefary. The variations
in the printed ftatement from the original notes
are entirely verbal.
MIR. Randolph. An obfcrvation has been
made in your depoftion, that Judge Chafe con-
fulted with his br her Judge (Grifiin) i'm the
opinions which he gave as the opinions of the
court; did you fee him in the act of confulta
ton, or did you hear him?
Mr.. Rsbert/on. was too bufily engaged in
writing to have leifure for obferving the atti-
NJ,
/ underftood at the time, and my imprefiion is.
that they held thofe mutual combinations.
Mr.. Rauaolbb l obferve in this printed de-
petition, that judge ChaGe always fpeaks in the
frf perfnn hnguar, was that his manner of ex
prefiing himfef?
MI. RobertIon. He fpoke in that manner on
all thofc occaions on which | cited him.
MIR. Randolph. How long, fir, have you been
in the practice of the law in Virginia
D.
the law for IL or 8 years in Virginia. | have
been practitioner on the part of the public for
feveral years. am now practitioner in two
diitriSts, having criminal jurifIiGtion, as public
profecutor. l have been twelve wears employ.
ed IN the one, and ever Gnce the year 1888 en-
ployed in the other.
Mr.. Randopb. What is the mode of pro-
ceeding in criminal cafes lefs than capital
mean efs than felonies, fuch as miidemeanors,
afllults and batteries, &c.?
MIR. Ro5ert/on. I will explain, fir. Mifde-
meanors, (fhoit of felony fuch as afIaults and
batteries, are the only offences in which it is the
practice TO iliue luminous, and upon the re-
turn of the luminous, if the party does not ap-
pear, capias is directed to be inIued by the
court but never knew, in offences of that
nature, that capias was ever iflued in the firtt
inftance. When l fay, l do not recolleet ca
pias to have ifIued in the frf infance, mean
TO be iilued, although there two cafes within
my knowledge in which offenders, for crimes
lefs than felony, were indicted and tried at the
fame term. The one was a confpiracy 10 pof-
on, and the perfon was bound, under recogni-
Zance, TO attend at the court which was then fit
ting. Bail was given in comfortable fun. the
trial came on fhortly after, and fentence of fine
and three years imprisonment pronounced. The
other was a confpiracy to fet fire to the town of
Petersburg. 1t was examined in the county
court, and fent to the court above, the diRrd
court. There they obtained new Indictment
againft the prifoner, and upon that indictment,
which was tried at the fame term, the perfon
was found guilty, and fentenced ALTO to fine and
imprisonment. 1t was from the heinoufnefs of
thefe offences, think that bail was required.
Mr.. Randolpb. Then in cafes of mifdemean-
or, not 70 heinous as to potion perion, or to
burn town, underaand it is your pra6tife, un-
der the laws of Virginia, to ifIue a luminous ??
Mr.. Robeyf/ou. Yes Sir.
Mr.. Rando bb. Well, Sir, at what time is
your luminous made returnablc
Mr.. Roberfjon. Always to the next term.
Mr.. R0ndoibb. Does the trial take place at
the next term, Sir
Mr.. Roberf)0n. Ifthe party appears he pleads,
and the trial goes off until the next term if he
does not Appears capias may he awarded, and
he is brought in to anfwer at the next term.