Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-06-15

hoInas Chapman, and John Fox. JUS
tees OF Prince William County, Dsten-
d0atS-
On rule Of this court entered against
the defendants at the last term to shew
caU-e, SC.
This day came as well the attorney for
the co Nmonweath as the defendants by
counsel, and the court having fully heard
the evidence and arguments vi counsel,
and having maturely deli Grated thereon :;
it is ordered tha' the rule BE- discharged
anti ON n;uiion o! Inc defendants Nv their
counsel. Il i>orered, thal the written o.
pinion at the Judge, deIiv"rrd N the de-
CisIon OF tns Cause this DAY by him hand
ed to the clerk be filed itn the papers.
The written opiri"n of the. Judge ..bove
alluded TO, and hied is ~ the following
words
he Commonwealth
Us.
The Justices Of Prince William County.
On motion To- discharge iuir to sbew
cause why Information shoult not be iIIed
against thcm Tor corruption ana oppres-
sior in ONCE.
his - Il molten, on the part OF the de-
iend MS, 10 tlSchai - a rule IL snow Cdu.P
WHY lnturHatou snuuld not he Il ell ~ ,inSt
then, for Co!ru ton aud oppression 10 the
exercise OF their lu';lcial iunctious. he
su j. CT Is OF gr'at import nee. AMI has re-
Cei>e,i that ,ull AMI deliberate iuve stiga-
ton Ia viii h 1t was entitled rom IL mag
n lli. " lin al tn attention which this
court could 'jrSt"w upon the e.qury, II has
been found diff u to ascertain The real
state Of several ri the facts. .e testIno-
ny IiS IT IN been COniusrd, 'iOuLllui and
! contradictory: nor is il remark hle it Suru!d
! have been so. when il j. ero..,ctrd lhat
one portion OF ne witness, 5 was un Ter the
intlu,nc, al considerable excitement " hist
tie others were vi 0ily in iilferen' and care-
l. IS OF The proceeding. he tOl oWirg is
; the most accurate ant!vslS which The court
! could lorH :-Ihe Jur} IN Tie Case of he
county court. from Whence this controversy
| has originated, alter their /, tir' u ent, re-
| tuned Irtn The court, aud offered TO the
court, through IT. pr"Per org n, what, for
distinction sake, may be called HE hrs
verdict for the sum III l. 2O. This YER
dict was rrportc.t 10 tie cnur, by the clerk,
and al tic r,Ument 81 hi> Closing his report,
motion a. made 10 tie court, bl The de
tenian,'s counsel, for a suii-mhilst
precisely al the same 'in,e, WITH The con
Sent OF the jury, the Plaintiff attorney was
modifying theirvtr CT The hi>l verdict
having been o]sou> y corrcctri by inter-
Ineation, it is not clear whether tn t, a,
CORE Ltcd, or the second VerIICt wholly IN
the h nd writing OF the piainIii 5 attorney,
was read to the whole q! them hetor, Their
discharge; II Is, however, certain, That rs
speedily hs tie correction could be made,
the anended ,eriirt Was read 10y The coun
sci o the Jury, and dssented to by them,
am thai !hi> verdict was substantially, II
not ~ terms. the same with that written
by the plaintiffs counsel. II would Seem
that but little time had been occupied IN
tree proceedings Al this stage OF them
thai the jury was discharged and dispersed.
AT th. time it l. certain that the amended
verdict has never been read TO the jury,
nor reported 10 the court, Ivy the proper
organ. Discussions OF an unpra ant cha-
ractrr between lie bar nd the h,nCp seem
10 have suCcre led this tage # the trans
action; an although muCn OF the,t tinony
exhibited to this court has iIr:led on mat
ters arisin4 thpret.er there are Rally none
Of any consequence III Il, Ies. Gut the IN
denied facts. that the court did refuse TO
receive 4n,. record The amended verdict
and did order to be .reC>rdei thai which
had b. en- IDLY reported To them and that
in this time. il not before. he frs verdict
a, inlrrIined aud added t., Wa, wholly OBJ
liter ted By the plaintiffs counse! 40 as to
be uninte ligibIe. The discussions above
alluded TO. turned on the Imprrprnty OF
the or!er Of non--uit, and the admiS iDi!iiy
Of, aud statements contained III bill OF
exceptions, prepared by tne p.alrtllt sCoun-
sci, and tie whole subject WAS terminated
by that counsel Offering To the cour the Sc
con-! verdict ami tie rejection OF it.
Nh4,rver confusion may attend the de-
tails OF the evidence, certain malerial facts
are sufficiently settled. and these iurni-h a.
much light a. l. necessary Tor the deCi sion.
l. is certain tina the verdict TOR Il dois. %
was r-turn'd and reported to the court by
its proper organ, the clerk, and that athU'
tbs verdict MAS amended by the counsel
with the consent of The Jury, yet this was
done without any application to the court
tibet The amended verdict vas not read 10
the Jury y the clerk, as Is usual ami pro-
per IN all such cases and never was otler-
ed or reported TO the court until alter the
Jury were discharged and dispersed and
when the court WAS called upon to act de
fnitively on this subject. there was nothing
upon the declaration, o. in tn, case, IN The
character Of verdict, but the frs, which
had been 20 interiined and ohIiteIaied IS
to be uninieiiigIhIe to the court, and he
secoad, which was wholly written by the
plaintiffs counsel not even signed b.
member of the jury, and which does not by
any means clearly appear to have been
written before their discharge. In tins
state OF things question was raised at the
hor r,bat ,y1 th. IrIJe verdict OF the Jury