Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-11-30
Cases before tie General Court.

y; yu"h HatueS, OF Cuipeper, charged
Wild felony ID stealing "a horse, the pro-
perry of DAME! Allen of the county of
fauquier, on The l4i!i day of February
ias,' al Georgetown, in the District of
Columbia, Was brought before The eNa-
mining Court OF Culpepcr or the 81 March
last. The Court was of opinion that he
was guilty of the felony, aud hat lie
ought to he tried before the General
Court. lie was accordingly arraigned at
the bar ct the General Court i'm .Jnue
last, and indicted under The following
sectiono an Act passed IN October 1874
AL hlyh ireasous, uiiSpt iSions, aud couccai-
mems ol Rich treasons and. other Uffencss
asaus, nus commonwealth, (eNcert riracies
anu ieiomles on the high seas committed nv
any citizen Of this commonwealth liz anv place
out OF The jurisdiction of the courts OF ContIno:,
law III this commonwealth. nnd all f.ionies
committed by citizen against citizen in any
Such place other than the high seas shall he
enquUrd INTO, he@rd, determines and Indeed
M The General Cont, in the same manner as
oHences committed within the body OF a cour-
~ are irIab!e in a district couri aud suclia as
shall he convicted ut any such offence, shalt
sufler such pains, penalties, Judgment and ey-
ecniion, as II they had been aiiainied and com
Victed OF such offence done withlA The body of
county"
The Jury e nd the prisr ncr enii,y aud
condemned him 10 The PenitenIiary for
1--WE years, g Il il shall be the opinion of
I'VE court Thai the case as stated i'm the
Indictment, Is embraced by The laws and
constitution OF Virginia, and the consii-
luton OF the United States" .This
gu s''on cam" before TIE Court al its
iaie term, and VAS argued a. some lrngih.
Ibey finally decided that The case as
stated was embraced by The laws. Nc
And they accordingly sentenced him 40
the PenifcDiIary. A motion was made il,
recommend him 10 the Executive for "a
general pardon, On which the court WIS
equally divided.
We understand that this is the first
case which has occurred under this law
aud that this provision oil the law has
been repealed in the new revised code.
which will 60 into cffeci in January next.
The case OF the cnmmouw a'tl' AGAINST
The James River Company (aojomrned
from The Superior court Of law for Henri
co county, was also argued al Tins term.
and decided as follows.
As 10 ile first question, The court is
unanimously of opinion HAT the iuforms,
ton III nature oiguO va,7nnt0 is the proper
remedy by which TO Ky and d eide
whethrr The charter OF The James River
Company ought TO be nuliiied and va
called, OF 10 prevent The Company from
receiving tolls.
The cour, is unanimously of opinion
that The interests which The common
wealth holds in the Stock of the James
River Company presents no bar 10 this
proceeding against il.
CT he court is unanimously Of opinion
that the Superior court for the county Of
Henrco has jurisdiction i'll this case.
The court is unanimously at opinion
that the rule III this case ought TO be
made absolute, aud leave given the At
iorney General 10 file all information in
the nature of gao uG,rGnfo.
The court is unanimously of opinion
that the information in nature Of gro wa1,
'a"to will lie against The corporation of
Tie. James River Company fg nomine TO
Try, whether the said company hath for
teiIcd lis franchise oi being a corporation
as well as lis other franchises and liber-
f!rs.-Which is ordered 10 be certified 10
The said Superior Court"