Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-11-04

DAY OF such incessant rain tlat the Judge
.Velson did not attend. rhore were eig6.
CRIMINAL cases; but no prosecutor for The
commonwealth appeared.s The Judge an
pleo To every member of the Bar who had
not been previously engaged as Counsel for
Tue prisoner, and these were 7dzeSveH, Tau
,0f, and "HT) TO draw the indictments, and
lay them before the Grand Jury: lynt every
member OF the Bar refused. In what man
ner then the criminals could be prosecuted
seemed a matter of doubt and difficulty. A
distinction was drawn between a presentment
and an Indictment, and it was Commended that
an indictment could not be drawn and found
by the Grand Jury themselves but that il
must be found by some third person. The
Judge seemed TO act upon this opinion as a cor
rect one. There could, therefore, be no pro-
Secutlon "A gentleman transient visitor of
Norfolk, oar. Skeiton Jones being n wit
ness OF tins extraordinary scene, had obser-
we'd, IN private company, that if he wasa
member OF the Norfolk Bar, he would not re-
fuse to prosecute for the Commonwealth
With small variation OF expression, this sen
tlment soon became publicly known in the
borongh; and, upon the strength of it, the
Judge waited upon Mr. Jones a, his lodgings,
and solicited him to az, he agreed to do SO
health, and from other causes, it would be
IN his power to do no more, than be the in
s;rument by which the forms of the law
should be complied with; he would draw the
indictment, and lay it beforethe Grand Jury
he would examine the TESTIMONY and read the
law to the jury. Accordingly the next day
Mr.. Jones attended; butwhen the oath pre-
scribed by the Act of Assembly, commonly.
called the Dueliing Law, was rendered TO
him he refused to take it. Here then again
question was made with the Court, whether
any individual. could act as Attorney for the
Commonwealth without taking all the oaths
OF office n and the Court adjourned until
Monday Without coming to any decision upon
the point 0n that day the judge decided
that any person appointed by the Court could
prefer ~ indictment to the Grand Jury with
out taking the oaths. This previous question
was thus disposed of But it was easy to fore
see, # the prisoner was found guilty By the
Uenire that errors in arrest Of Judgment would
be offered, and that this point would be much
insisted on by the able & ingenious Counsel for
the prisoner To obviate, therefore every
difficulty, as faras this could De done, MIR. Thos.
u. Parker took ali the athsprescribed by law.
and was thus, without objection, legally qua
lifted as prosecutor for the Commonwealth
An Indictment for murder was then sent TO
the Grand Jury, and they found it a true bill.
1t appeared, however, from the record, that
the Court which sat upon the examination of
Myers IN May last, had declared that he was
only guilty of manslaughter, and not of MUIR
der. 1t became then a question with the
Court, and was discussed with much ability
by Mr.'Idytor, whether the G rand Jury could
find an Indictment for murder, when the e2,-
amining Court had previously enquIfed into
the offence, and decided that it was not muir
der, but manslaughter. Upon this point the
Judge, with thu consent of the prisoner, adj
jouIned the decision TO the General Court for
novelty and difhculty.-Heraid
~ beng 7yeH kuo7Un that John BGr5er,
thetormer prosecutor. TOR the Commonwealth
IN thar Court had resigned his office before
the commitment Of Myers.