Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1823-06-28
HIGHWAY ROBBERY,

by the passengers who arrived In the
eastern stage on Wednesday night, that
on the preceding evening as MIR. Pat
rick Beegly, who resides in the v'cini-
ty of this place, was crossing the Al
legheny mountain, about two miles
west Of Stattler's Tavern, he was at
tackled by three armed ruffians, one OF
whom discharged pistol at him, on
which the other two seized his horse,
dragged Mr. Beegly into the woods,
and robbed him of $4,000. We did
not understand that he sustained any
personal injury. 1t is stated that Mr..
b. called at MIR. Stattler's Tavern,
where he intended to stop for the night,
but the house being crowded, nc was
compelled to ride few miles further
to procure lodgings, and while pursu'
ing his journey, was attacked by the
villains. He was on his return from
Baltimore, where he had disposed OF
large quantity of Bacon, lard, &c. with
which fact, no doubt, the robbers were
acquainted. The neighbors, it is sta
ted, collected and secured the noun
tam, but without effect. Mr.. Beegly,
his brother Thomas, and MIR. Daniel
Turney. in company, have successfully
pursued the business of drovIng for
some time, with advan age to the coun-
try in which hey aside, We sincere.
ly sympathise " tn hese gentlemen
and trust that enry p 'ssible exertlon
will be made by H.. citizens generally
to recover the money and apprehend
the Williams.
THE GENERAL COURT
RICHMOND, June 24.-The General
Court convened this day week and ad.
journed last evening. they decided sc.
veral cases-one of the most interest,"
ing as follows:
In the Csc Of the commonwealth vs..
Matthew III. Rice, agent Of sales for
the penitentiary & bis securities. the
counsel for the defendants first moved
the court to impannel a Jury to try the
issue joined 1t was conceded that as
the act of Assembly authorised mo-
ton and judgment In summary way,
this was an application addressed to
the discretion of the court, and might
be denied; but It was said that the ju-
ry trial ought to be preferred, unless
there was some special reason for re-
fusing it.
By majority of he court the mo-
ton was granted and jury impannel-
led
When the bond was offered in evil
deDce, the counsel for the defendants
moved that it should not be received.
on the ground that the board Of direc
tors Of The penitentiary had no author
ity TO take it, and if it had. that 1t ought
to have been accepted by the execu-
tive, or some one specially authorized
to accept on the part of the common.
wealth.
The act of assen,bly o.horized the
board of directors appoint ago"l
of sales, and generally to do any thing
for the benefit of the institution, but
did not expressly authorize the taking
bond from such agent. In this case
the boa,d had by an order entered on
their minutes, directed bond to be ia
ken with security to be approved by
The executive council, but the execu'
tive declin .ng to act, had afterwards by
another order, approved the bond 1t
self.
The court decided unanimously that
the power to take bond from An a.
gent entrusted with public property,
was incident 30 tho power Of appoint
! ment, and moreover that if it wac ne
cessary to accept or approve the bond
at all. otherwise than by having 1t in
, possession, the board of directors had
sufficiently approved it and that their
approval was enough.
The bond was conditioned to account.
Sc. for manufactured articles placed In
tae agents hands for sale. The com
N onweath exhibited an account of
stock placed in the agents hands at
| different times for sale-credited by
various cash payments. This lett
balapce Of stock ostensihly In Rice's
hands of upwards Of 10000 dollars,
short tine before this bond was eXecu.
ted, and was relied on as evidence TO
charge the securities. Their counsel
stated they should be able to shew, as
they were assured by Rice, that at the
| time when the account charged 10000
dollars and more OF stock to be on hand
there was really not 80 much as D5OOo
worth. The counsel for the common
wealth agreed to hear this evidence.
subject to future objection as o its ad
instability, but on its examination
it was found utterly insuth Client to sup
port the statement. The jury there
r Il IL L. G.. E.