Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-12-16

The Commonwealth y To Judgment or the
Superior Court Of Augusta, in the PETITION fur
which sundry errors were assigned, but as the
drcision ct the court turned upon single
point. that alone will he stated.
The petitioner was indicted for the forgery
OF certain paper writing. Ia the pre- udicr of
anoiher's right. This offence is declared hy
he statute passed in 1919 To- he felony, and
the person convicted 10 te punished by con-
finement in the public Jail aud p-niten,iary
house for not less than one nor more than
ten years.--Se. 1st Vol. Rev. Co. y. $50. A4.
Inc petitioner was charged in the indictment
as a free man of color, aud the jury convicted
him, and determined his punishment Ia he
four years Imprisonment in the peniteniiary.
The indictment charges that the offence was
committed ON the 10Th day Of MAY 1928
| But by AN act passed IN the Slst February
1898, il is enacted, that "when any free ne
gro, ar muatto, shall be convicted of AN Of
fence now by law punishable nv imprisonment
~ the Jail and penitentiary house for more
han two years, such person shall b. punished
ny stripes at the discretion of the Jury, shall
moreover he adjudged to he sold as a slave.
and transported and banished beyond the Ii
Mrs of the United States" The act wen, in
to operation on the lst day of August 1928.
The fifth section is in these words: GAN acts
ana parts of acts coming within the purview
/ W tifis dCi, SDdI ne, ana the same hprphy
repealed"
| The conviction of the prisoner occurred in
September 1898. after the repeating law took
effect, and the question for decision was, whe-
her at the time of the trial and conviction.
there was any law under which the prisoner
could he punished
According tn the decisions in England. and
according to the common sense of mankind,
II AN offence be made treason or felony nv ac
oi the legislature, and then the act he repealed,
the offences committed before such repeal
anu the proceedings iherenpon, are discharged
by such repeal. and cannot he proceeded up
on, uuless special clarse in the act uf re- peal
he made, enabling such proceeding after thu
repeal, for offences committed before -See
lst Hale, p. 29l and 500 Isl w Black Rep.
p 43l; 9TH Dallas p. sig !; and 9Th Bacon's A .
p. S72.
In Scntrs case, decided in June 1917 bv the
General Court. these principles were recngni
zed as law. That case was much stronger
than thls: because in that. the repeating sta
tute hal ciause describing The offence. and
prescribing the punishment in all respects the
same with the Statute repealed. and vet. he
cause the repeating clause had no proviso ena-
bling the proceeding for offences committed
before, it was decided that the offender could
not he proceeded against.
Nor can the prisoner be punished under the
new law, because as To his offence, il is an er
post }ncio law
For these reasons the court were upani
monsiy of opinion that the Judgment he re-
versed, and the prisoner discharged and ac.
Quilted.
Vote. Upon other occasions, the legislature
has been well aware Of this rule. Of law. In
the rerIsals of 1892, and OF 1919, every re
peaiing clause has such proviso as is her; in
set FORTH aud it is believed that il, both codes
there IS not an exception to the contrary.
:. Hudson Sprouse, Writ of Error to
vs.. Judgment of The Snpe
The Commonwealth. \ rior Court of A bemarle
The petitioner was indicted for murder. He
challenged three of the jurors for cause, but
ms challenges were overrued by the court.
ana exceptions were taken to the opinion of
me court From the first of these it appear
ed by the oath Of John Terrell, one of The said
jurors, that he had not heard any of the g.
violence IN the casa, but that he heard a person
VINO was at the called court detail part of
me evidence, To wit the evidence of Patsy
Noohs, who was said To be the PRINCIPAL viii
ness IN tne prosecution, and who also stated
there were several witnesses who seemed to
contradict her statement That he 1.-THE iurorl
mad stated, that if these things were true he
believed The prisoner guilty, but that the pri-
soner was stranger To the juror, that he resi-
neu al least thirteen miles from him. that he
iei no prejudice of mind against him, that ne
was open 10 conviction and ready To do the
prisoner justice, and if the facts did not turn
out as they had been represented to him. to
change his opinion" From the second bin of
exceptions, 1t appeared by the statement of
IN" juror Abraham Want when examined on
MS roar dare, " that he had heard the subject
of Inc trial spoken of frequently in the coun-
~ lha' ne cane now say whether the per
SONS from whom he has heard the reIat,on of
me evidence were present al the examining
courf or not But upon such relation. which
ne he'Ieved to he true, he has formed - pretty
substantial opinion, and expressed the same
more Than once That he now thinks. thai
notwithstanding the formation and the express
slop oil SUCH opinion, he could as Juror dn
justice To the prisoner. That he was not at the
called court, nor had he heard The evidpnce-in
the case, nor conversed with any of the viii
nesses: that the opinion hich he had taken
up, and frequently expressed. was fnnnded nm
rnmour IN the county that he felt no prpiu
dlce and was open to conviction" The third
MI OF exceptions need not be set forth ne no
Judgement was pronounced on it.-Thpre was
verdict against the prisoner, and Judgment
OF death pronounced. To reverse fhis iudp-
ment the writ of error was applied for. and
the ground taken for the reversal was that the
court erred in overriding the prisoners chal
leDSrs. The following extract is taken from
the opinion deliseredby Jrtdge Wh,ts:
The court ~ unanimously of opinion, that
the challenge of the juror John Terrell, was
correctly oyerrulcd: but the court is further
OF opinion that The challenge of the iurar Wi
ant was good in law, and ought to have been
sustained.
Z" 10 England il has long been an established
| ttFfnctDp. that III "A Juror hoe - IL.