The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-19

tIe oHeuoeI Desole q WaSluatc.
Mr.. Harper II is then Object in your par;
Of the country tina, offenders fhoul6 eicape!
A. No, iir. A magiarate may iilue his warrant,
and spprehend perfons punhable for miidemeauors.
do no, recolled any inffance of the kind pre-
fentment. But at the diitritf court, where Judge
Tucker pscfided, underisood that capias iiIued
gainh perfon fer throwing ttone the
MIR. Harper. Was it az indictment preient-
menti
A. Neither. II was for contempt Of the court.
Mr.. Harper. They 90 then puniih for contemp,s
in Virginia
a. Certainly.
Mr.. Harper. will ak you qusltion relative to
another part of this cafe. Have you ever known an
inftanee in Virginia in which qnetoD was propelled
to juror Of this kind" Have you formed and
delivered opinion refpeang the matter in iilue 2!
"A. In the county where reiided, the Britlh mer-
chants had great many claims aganit the Citizens
called Brth debts, fome of which employed to
profecute. 1t found that it would be imPofii-
bic to get jury if the having formed an opinion was
admitted as execute, every man had formed an o.
pinion The court determined that unlefs man had
delivered well as formed opinion he was good
juror.
Mr.. HARPER. A. the Virginia practice is extreme
ly unfettled, will proceed thew what the practice
of Maryland is, in which ftate Judge Chaie was
brought up.
| MIR. Rar1olb5. am of opinion that the council
might well adduee the law in Turkey. The arti-
Gle only charges the Respondent with breach Of the
Virginia law.
Mr.. Lee. hold it as undeniable that when
a high officer is brought before this high tribu-
nal, charged with high crimes and mifdemean-
ors, he may produce evidence from any fource
whatever that reprobates the evil intention
wherewith he is charged. When tefimony is
produced by the managers to thew what the
Judge fad in the prefence of trangers, jocofe-
lily, and with uniufpicious freedom, to prove an
evil intent, how comes it, when we attempt to
flew by iniifputable evidence that there was no
evil intent, that we are denied the right. This
high court, which have the honor of addref-
fling, is, apprehend, court of Impeachment,
and not of errors. When an error is alleged to
have been committed by the judge, mall we be
denied the right of adducing evidence to thew,
that if it was an error, it was common to the
judicial tribunals before he was RATED to the
high place he now holds; that during the whole
courfe of his profefiional career he retained the
opinion, now charged as error that in all
cafes he held and iupported this opinion, and
that he ever acted under the conviction that he
was faithfully dichargng his duty that he fat
as judge in criminal cafes for fix years and
that it was his uniform practice to have the ca
pias returned to the fame term which it iiitI-
ed, and that it was his practice to try for Of
fences at the fame term that they were in
dieted. Will the court deny this right? If the
COuQuCl OF Inc 1uQSC Hail OC dCCNHCd All SiloI,
will not this be coiidercd as iome execute
MIR. Randolph Eaid, had he known that his
remark would have occafoned 70 long an argu-
ment, he would not have faid a word. He was
ready to admit AS proven that for which the
gentleman meant TO produce teieimony-that
the practice was fuch as they fated it to be in
Maryland.
MIR. KEY. / underifand then that it is admit
ted to be the univerfal practice in Maryland in
81 k.fN fhe tp.tIS
to ifiue capias or bench warrant.
Mr.. Ranaolb6. ! admit it.
| Mr.. Key. And that in all cafes where there is
a prefentment, capias or bench warrant al
fues infAnfer.
Mr.. Randolph. admit that it is the gene
raj practice.
Mr.. Key. That is fuGcient.
Mr.. Martin. And that IT is the general prac-
tife to try the frt term.
/ MIR. Nieboijon. admit that this is the cafe
in capital cafes but not in lighter cafes, if the
party accufed oppofeit.
MIR. Martin. The revcrfe is the cafe. The
court will rather avoid prefIing trial in capital
cafes, where the life of the party is involved.
MIR. Wrigbt faid he wiihed to put queftion
to Mr.. Martin in his capacity of a witnefs. In
what cafes have you ever known bench war
rant to ifIue
Mr.. Martin. I have pra6ifed for twenty-fe-
ven years and the invarable pra6tife is to iflue
a bench warrant Immediately on the prefentment
IN all cafes from the lowet to the highet Often
ces.
Proficient. Is there any difference between a
capias and warrant
Mr.. Martin. They are the fame except that
one is ilued by amsgiftrate, and the other by
the court.
Mr.. Lee here adduced number of authori-
ties, (the greater part of which he barely refer
red toy for the purpofe of exhibiting fully the
grounds of the defence. AS thefe were again
introduced in the arguments of council, we
fhall only, in this place, refer to them. He re-
ferred to the saith fiction of the Judicial Act of
the United States.-to cd Dallas 4I1-Gilbert'S
law of evidence pa. so7,sos-alfo pa. sis-
the 14th fiction Of the foregoing act of Con-
grefs-Dallas 235, 34l.
Mr.. Harper faid they would proceed to adj
duce teitimoDy relative to the 18th article.
CUNNING BEDFORD Eavorn.
Mr.. Harper. Peafe to fate to the court whether
you preieut in your judicial character at cir
cult court held at Wilmington in 1900, and relate the
circumstances which occurred.
A. Jattended thatcourt on the 27thof June. Judge
Chafe preiided. arrived in the morning about half
an hour before Judge Chale. We went into court a.
bout | o'clock. The grand jury was called and EN-
pannelled The Judge delivered a Charge they re-