The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-15

nat oo,h mu't be believed Sd State Trials page So
4. That there muit be two witnefes TO the
Grand Jury Of each overt act, follow alto as a
consequence from the former petition, that they
muit nave inch teftimony as would be requift.
for the Petit Jury.
S. That the Grand Jury cannot find Bill for
ireaion In confequence of any confeiions made
though proved by two witnencs.
Fofter GALS. Black.
Contribution Of the U. S Article Sd Sec s-c,r,v.
dons byeit Judge ired=lls charge--Friess Trial
17l-I72v Eafh 96-97
6, That as the Grand Jury only hear evidence
on the part ofthe rate, if upon that evidence
they entertain douh. of the truth of the
charge, they ought not to find the Bill, as the
presumption is ever in favor of innocence.
| III. Mentally to s.
=. No act of third pcrfon can be given in
evidence aealnft the accufed to prove him
quiity OF Ireafon, or of mifdemeanor under
tne law OF 5th June 1894, unlefs that att is
proved to have been committed by the advice.
command, direction, mitigation of the ac-
cuied, IT done in his abfence or if done in his
preience unlefs it be proved that the accufed
was aiding or allilling.
An att ihal bind perfon conneSed with the 40
but the declaration lhall not bind him becsuC. no
part of the aGf
McNally 6l5 to Clio.
s. The declarations ofothers cannot be given
III y, evidence on the preient enquiry to fupport
tue charge OF Treafon of mfoemeanor un-
aef the act OF Congrefs 18Th June 1894 unlefs
IT be proven that the accuGed was prefent and
aiiented thereto.
Ear 967n cafe of confpirary confetti ans good again
nun who makes them but not againit others,
Poake b Confess Peake tIearlay--KeIyng 18th
McNaly 4o-4l, Confeiiions of one cannot be read
againf Others.
Sd State Trial 574.
"A relation of what had been done no evidence.
McNal!y Gle.
Declarations of others is no, evidence.
State Trial o2-le6.
State Trials als in the prelsnse of others, they as
queiiing,
NfcNaly e21.
Mr. Hay oppofed this proceeding. He CON-
tended, that the court had no right TO give
lpecihc lnitructons to the Grand Jury, after
tneY mad been once generally charged by the
coc:' that fuch courfe was contrary to all
Jaw ana all precedent. that not Jingle inflance
could be quoted to iupport it and that there
were coGent 6 in this inftance particular reafons
why Criminal projections fhorld be FILTERED
10 pr0greis without thefc Interruptions, Fl.
fsrther contended, that the Chief Tuflice had
anticipated iuch ftuaton and that the Lam
Suage IN his charge clearly indicated his exnec-
alton that bills would be laid before the Grand
-. ~ 'iN Eio[i.N oI TCdlOi! and that under
t"'S cE97tta'ion, Re Chief JuEicc had diiated
| or the rsjore sf GTczion. and riyep aD thr in.
formation 'v:i!ca ne thought material that
there was no reaion at al, Why \, Yurr fl,nuIi
enjoy greater privileges ;hga any other man:
why he ihoud rake up al the old ,noav. and
abiurd doctrines OF antiquity < have then. en-
lifted in his fervice & that he Rood on the yegv
lame ground as any other man that per
maps all the proportions on Mr.. Burr's lift
would not be wanting at all or if there
thould be any neceility for them, that theft.
quetlons might be dncufed as thew fuccefive
!y arofe that theft diicul!ions would neceGa
rlly confume much Of his own time as well az
toe time of the court, which might probably he
devoted to more uieful purpoles and afte,
all, the Grand Jury might rcfnlc to hear any
nftructions, and IN that cafe, how could thew
be confronted by the court If The Grand Iu.
ry determined to pay no regard to Il, OF
what avail would be the Recommendation az
the court (tor it was in fact no more y And if
they were TO find according to their own opi,
MONS, and 10 the old way, how could the coure
know of this variation And how could they
rectfy it?
Mr. BsH5 replied. He h,ted ,6st tbe Con
was but the other day when that yerv gsn,1.N
man had enqrred, why we 70 conftantlv re-
lofsed 10 precedcnts /; and why We did aoz
lomeumes Conihit the principles Of cor,nons
ienles that the G.. ]. were not thaf lswlefs mob,
winch the gentleman had feemed TO reOrrGrnt
then; & that they woudnot certainly Ct agaiplt
the law, when 1t was properly erDounded to
them by the head OF the court tina. although
the Chief JuRice's charge was extremely abe,
yet 1t was impolibe that it could be 10 corn.
preventive as it might now he made, from th,.
Information which has fince occurred and
that the very necefiity of giving any charge ~
all, fhewed the Propriety Of perfectiug il that
II was not col. B's deiire to confume much
time, as it was his NOT earneR VIII, TO end n
once the bonds of recognizance and the pub.
lie prejudice, which furrounded him: and that
they were even willing TO limit their fhare Of
the ditculion to particular time.
Tie Cbif Jgi7ies faid, that Il was pfaal and the
belt courle Tor The court charge the Jury generally,
at the commencement of the term, ard to give the,
opinion on incidental points as they arole, wien the
Grand Jury, themIelves, ihould apply to them for
information; that it manisealy improper 20 COM
NIT the opinion of the cours on points, which mighe
come before them, be decided on the trial in CHEF.
that ne had generally confined his charges to 4 few,
general points, without lsunchjuy into many details
one reaon was, that fome Of the detailed points might
never aTiie during the FELTON, of the Grand ury and
any 'ntrUetion on them, would Of oourie be uppe-
cetlary another was. that fome of thele pointe
might be extremely difficult to b decided and wort,
require an argument Of Council bccauie there was