Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-11-25

ders; AZ presenl Ii is only necessary To state
inst ITS results on the most ms,eriai points arc
embraced hS the following order of the court,
which was entered up on Wednesday last:
Us Case a.ilionyred. G-e
The Superior Court Of Norfolk county l,avivg
with tlie assent Of the Prisoner, Samuel Myers
ADJOURNED to the General Court The following.
questions of Law, viz
Firss: Whether ~ court of examination hath
power 10 e;fuit prisoner charged before them
with mds*F3& OF the murder with which nc
stands so c2hars,ed. and 20 rensnd the said ,,ri
soner to oe'ried in the Superior Court for mans
iaugncr on accom-. of the same homic;de:
oeeonf.p Whether a prisoner accuitted bv
me examining court ofnurdcr and rcnandcd 90
ne treti before the superior court Cor nanslauph
ter ON account OF the same homicide. but indict-
ed m the sad superior court ON account OF the
same homicide, IS entitled to be bailed by such
superior court after the discharge OF tie Grand
jury who found no other indictment ag.,ir9t him
a nd any and .sli the other Questions of law a.
rising upon the ptcadings-
ne cour: having matuTely Considerable said
questioqA& INV afterthe argument ofthc Attor-
ney GeY&kd and Counsel for the prisoner; are
"'G E, ~ olhsPii.on and do decide:
power TO acqut person charged before them
with murder, ofthe murder of which he SO
charged and 70 remand him to be tried for man
slaughter in the superior court on account of
the same homicide
SeeeHaLS, it is further the arasip,ous opinion
oil the court, that the examining court being lc-
gai'y incompetent TO oOntroul the proceeding of
lhe superior court upon the case ofthe prisoner
renandcd by the exaslining court to the sumo
rior court for felonious homicide, Il was law.
ful TO indict the prisoner FOR murder. notwith-
standing the discrimination by the examining
court as TO the grase OF homicide, and being So
indicted, the said Nisoner was Not entitled to
be bailed on the grodnd OF No IlSikctment heinq
found against him ior'the oiI;s;G f mansiaugh,
i:: j ss 4 ' SUBSIDIES a';.: n
First, What the nrSsorer was charged with
the murder Of Ricinrd Bowdcn, exsynined for
the same before aetourt legally constituted and
iound not gHi(iSJD the murderlnd that he ought
not to be rerpG'ded to the superior court for
, 2nd, That the prisoner was q pryed with the
murder OF Richard Bowden, examined FOR the
same before court leFallv CONSTRUCTED, aud
found not SViftv oithe said murder, and that he
ought not TO be remanded TO the superior court
therefor, but ought be tried for the offence of
lnanslaughter IN the superior court OF law to be
held at Portsmouth, Sc
9ra, hat ne was duychargei, examined and
med tor the reurder of Richard Bowtlen before
a court legally constituted, and upon this trial
and examination was dnly ard Legaily acquitted
OF the SAID murder and felony with which he
STOOD charged and was aGiudged by the court not
g"ltg thcreof-To each of which pleas, the Al.
torney for the Commonwealth ds11,urr-ea gener-
ally and the prisoner flied rcioindcr thereto,
ana me matters OF law arising thereupon having
0eeA duly considered the court doth decide:
AZ N..as ~
the Indictment, and we'll pleaded, the demurrer
.hcreto ought to be over-ruled, and the plea
held good
Thst the second plea stating proceeding BY
the examining court which the court has dccid-
cd IN answer to the first question to be one ex-
ceeeding the jurisdiction of that court does not
afford matter in bar Of ;he Indictment & there
,or ', as 70 that plea the demurrer ought to be
held good and the plea over-ruled
That Rethird plea afTordinf- matter in bar Of
nc rldl9ms,lt and well pleaded ought TO be
held gooFmd the demurrer thereto over-ruled
winch n ordered TO be certified TO The supe-
rior cour2of Norfolk county.
from this oydcy it appears, that the counsel
lof Myers have thus far substantially attained
tpeir object, but through the mispleadinga of the
attorney for the commonwealth who served Il,
the court below. The counsel for the Drisonc -.
nsd Died three pleas: to which the attorney put
N what they call a general demurrer Now,
ae7t"frer always admits the facts, which are sta
Ieu OF the opposite party, TO be true One Of
tHsse pleas, for instance, stated, that MYERS
had been duly examined, and acquitted OF tho
MURDER ard felony. The demurrer thus admit
tea the very tact which was at issue
It rs impossible as ret positir " 20 say in
wnnt way this case wiil finally cnd.--Judee
White at ire close Of his opinion, added. that
there was cae Pont which the court had not vet
undertaken to decide; viz Whether Tic Corn
monwealth could mend It's plcadings, chat is.
wifherG11 ps demurrer and put in a ncw plea
This point was waved the bar. and Il was an.
derstcod 90 be ono which would fairly Law over
iorthe court bclQW. Il was aiss,surresfod, that
the counsel for Hyefs would pbve two sf the
circuit Judges NELSON and emplc were men.
tionedl for writ Of haieqf torpas 10 bring Nv,
ers before them, and att Nj 70 bail him under
The act Of assembly Au4'yi.n the circuit court
meets in ne spring, ~ quef ION may diem be-
discusa& dswhethcr " prisoner be finally dis
charged ortle cong onWualth be permitted 70
mend it&plsdineE
Yet lessl b question go, IS il nav Enc dcri-
sion OF the General Court il important ~ II
serves To tx the ruc in the Examining Courts
that most important link in the chain OF our cri-
minai 1Crisprodcncc---T practice in these
courts seems hitherto 10 have been extremely
yafUe ard uncertain. But the oniy questions.
Whici seem now 90 come Within the pale Of flc
iaE, as czpounded by tie decision II the Gene
ri Court, arc these
lst Shall tc prisoner be discharged from
iuifher prosccr .n, or fema1dcd for trial
2nd. Y rcmaudcd, shalt he be tried in ,bo cir.
cut, or IN the county or corporation cour,sl