The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-07-15
COMMUNICATION.

COMMUNICATION.
The iah Enquirer contains an addrefs to Judge
Prcntis by fome one. under the figna,ure Of
Iuridcus. The writer has magniiied a very
common incideot, into a novel and alarming
inroad on the right of Juries. Everv n, m who
has been much in the habit of attending the diff.
triet courts OF comr:on law, NUT have feen
| repeated cafes, in which the court has inter-
cepted the adirefs from the Attorney for the
commonwealth by fome ohfervations like this !;
Mr.. Attorney we prefume you will not
think 1t necefary to prefs the profecution on
this evidence there is certainly, nothing in
J" II, TO fupport the indictment, or to iuaify
the con!umption of time, which an argument
may take up" Such remarks. refult from
the confederation, that the law tfelfha applied
a fcale to prefump.ive proof, distinguishing it
into violent. probable, and light and the pro-
priety Of the Judges explaining this legal fcae
to jury, wherever profecution depends on
2refumptive proof only. Where the prefump-
tons are obvioufy light, there is certainly no
principle of humanity law, which can rem
der 1T criminal in Judge, to drop the expref-
hon of fnch Al idea. IN the prefent CAFE, the
exoreffion which fell from the bench was the
effect of a confultation betwecn the two Judges,
and not the mere dittate of Judge Prentis 1t
took place, after the commemorative Attorney,
had been permitted TO open the cafe at large
gone through the legal explanation of prefunp-
tive proof. 1t was at this poin, of time, and in
cafual interval in the defence, that Judge
PrentIs delivered the opinion not of himfrlf
| merely, but OF the court, on the nature and
legal force of prefumtive proof and after fiat
ing the imprefIion of the court, as to the light,
nefs of the prefumptions before them, the Jury
were adnon!hed, with emphatic folemnity,
that If the evidence had produced different
| effect on their minds, they were bound BY their
osths to find verditt of guilty. 1t is believed,
| that nothing was taid to them, as to the courts
awarding new trial in the event of their find
ing fuch verdia; it might, however, have
| been natural for them to infer it and what, If
| they did Or the expreiIions were really ufcd?
| Would they have heen juffed by fuch an in
| ference or from the expreflion, in falhfyiug
their oaths as jurors and finding verd9 A.
\ gainlt their own condolences Is it credible
that they would have done, or did do, fnch
thing Was it required of the N by the bench |!
Was not on the contrary their duty ditinetly
tated to them, from the BENCH and verdict,
on their own imprefiions of the evidence, feri-
Gully and reEgioully euoned on them! IF
they founded verdict on the impretfi ms of the
bench againt their own, they did what they
were not required TO DO, what they ought ut
to have done, what they were devoutly admon-
l'hed not to do, and the crime is their own.
1t is believed, however, that they acted from
confidence and judgement in their verdict of
acquitta. The apprehension exprelied by Juri-
deus, that this example may be hereafter turn
ed again't the life of prifonsr,is perfectly VIII
onary mutt be founded on want of legal
lknowledge, and is mott degrading opinion of
the people, from whole body Juries are taken.
| EDery fazpyer knows, that the court has the
power of awarding new trial in favour of life,
but never aga'nit it,. In the prefent cafe, ifthe
Jury had found verdict of guilty, the court
might, and it is probable, would have granted
a new trial but whatever their inclination
might have been, they had no power to fet aide
4 verdict of not equity" and give new
trial for the commonwealth. The power, there
fore, which is now complained Of mutt of ne
cetiity, have been the iide Of life and mercy,
never can be exerted againa them. Befides,
how weak, or wicked. NUT Juridicus think his
Peers, from Whole body juries are formed, if he
| really believes the cafual exprefIion of the opi
| Mon Of the bench, will turn them from their
| oaths, even againft the mott folemn warning of
the bench itfef; that it is their own confcien
ces, their own imprefiions, of the evidence,
| which they are to confult, and on which thew
| are to ground their verdict On the whole, the
act complained OF, was by no means an un-
common one,-was the act of the court.-was
innocent and humane.
| 1T by that act victim has been refcued from
perhaps prejudice and legal murder, the iudg-
es, 1t IS pretumed, will not eep the lefs Quietly
on that account nor is it probable, that the
intended ftigma of Juridcus, or the criticifns
otthe Spectator, can diturb their Plumbers.
Perhaps it ought to have required an apology
for thus ntruding on the public, by noticing
even in this curfory manner, the production of
this gentleman, and it might have been better,
As celebrated writer obferved of Rockineham',
| administration, to
| Let them diGolve and PERTH in their
own weakness"