Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-03-19
Superior Court of Lar.

will tell" "'' " ~ ~
Superior Court Of Luto.
| The Superior Court for Henrco county,
tor The trial of criminal causes, came on The
9TH OF this month, and continued till the 10Th.
During the term, the following convictions
took place:
Johu Ifmsiey, charged with keeping End en-
h,Otstng n faro-Bank. The Jury brought in
verdict of guilty, accompanied by their
| opinion, that The punishment of stripes, which
Inc law of February 1928 directs To- he infct
ed Tor this offence, was " cruel and unusual -
and therefore recommending him Ia the
mercy of the Court. We understand that
The Judge (BrOCkeubrough) concurred in the
proprIety oI rtmlling the punishment of
stripes IN thus instance, and made commun-
cation upon The subject Ia the Executive
Ihey declined acting in the case before the
sentence was pronounced. The Judge then
sentenced the prisoner 10 s months imprisop
'nent in the common Jail, To be fed on low and
coarse diet-and directed that ten stripes
should be inflicted upon him on the last day
oil his confinement.
we sympathlse with the feelings Of the Jury
we cannot doubt for one moment, that the
Executive will stretch out the arm of Mercy
10 save the prisoner from the scourge We
mink the law is ill-advised and cruel Far
NJ II from us To Justify the crime-Aliserahle
beings they are who are tempted 10 exhibit
the Faro table. But all laws, To be. effective.
must learn 10 consult public opinion The
opinion oi the world will never Justify the
sconrgIng Ifa free man for such an exhibition.
lhere is strong prejudice against the use of
me sc0urge upon the body of white man II
Is unfortunately The LOT of the slave. We
cannon easily bring our minds 10 the indis-
crimihate use OF punishment, which con-
LIQUIDS the condition of the freeman and the
slave. In old Rome, il was forbidden Tn
scourse the body ola citizen--t was pun
ishmeni reserved for the slave. However our
laws may in some cases in1ict it unnn the
wnite man, yet tin the case of a gambler, the
pubic sentiment AT once rises 6,,sagaiust IT.
rms Is the first instance thar we have heard
o' under the law. thought never TO have been
enacted. To put up convicted gambler ts
De sofa DIS slave-or tn scourge him like d
stare, is abhorrent to the ,iist feelings of our
countrymen.)
Leopold Jones-conyicted ofreceiying stolen
goods Knowing them to be such, and sentenc-
eu 10 be imprisoned 6 months in the common
la'l; and pay fine of 8 SOC.
nm u. IhomGSSon was convicted of for
gerry, and sentenced to two years imprison-
ment in.lhe Penitentiary.
Caroline Exams, free woman of color.
was convictedof Petit Larceny and sentenced
10 De imprisoned three months in the Com
mon jail on low and coarse diet, and TO receive
uuilDg that time twenty-five stripes ten
suIPes upon one day, and fifteen upon ano
Their
John .4tdridge, free man of color. was
convicted of Grand Larceny. When brought
10 me bar 10 receive his sentence, he moved
we court to arrest the judgment against him,
' -, Isl OF an error IN the indictment in
laf he
2lst day ofDecember in the wear one thousand
eight hundred and twenty thee. And Cd
because the law directing free negroes and
nulattoes convicted of certain offences 10 be
sod AS slaves and transported, is contrary To
the Dill OF flights OF Virginia, and therefore |
unconstitutional and void
Ihe Court took time tn consider the case
Iand on The next day (last Tuesday delivered |
the following opinion.
TIE Commonwealth Join Aidridge-fa free negro con-
viced of grand larceny 1.-THE 6rsobecon made is TO the
pdctneni in this that the offence ssaeged to have been
committed on the 2ist December one thousand eight hun
bred and wentydee This literal misprision i, cured bv
Inc statute of eohais 10 criminal cases The opinion Of
The five judges, who upon conference in June 1910 ex
pressed an opinion that after verdict not Il,
he arrested for want Of laying in the indictment az erpye
day. must be respected by this The ground Of that
opinion undoubtedly vas tat upon the trial proof OF The
Ohence being committed different day from chnrg
ed was allowable, The omission Of day (ahourb bad in
demurrerl could not be objected oer verdict The same
reason viii apply 70 this IN which there l. an omission
Of single letter in the yea, in which the offence ,a. com
mitied Bu again, reject tie word thee as senseess apo II
stands thatbe offence committed in the year 1870 Ir
this bad been demurred to- might probably be sustained
bcauss by virtue OF the oct of thousand eigh, hun
dred and twenty-five the repeal Of all former laws within
The purVew Of that act statutory pardon was extended to
such free blacks and nua,toes as had committed Offences
within the scope Of that act prior the August 1873
but as the party 70 trial without demurrinr and "a Tie
Commonwealth might at that trial have proved The lareerv
charged to have been committed al time different from
ihe tine alleged, viz IN December 1879 thus court n,t
presume after verdict hat tie oGesce was proved ia have
been committed day 10 year ,ybicb the offence
was punishable by law, and which alone would render
verdict eainst the prisoner proper.
The next objection that the act fcb 81 1852
81 inHcts cruel aud unusual punishment and is there
fore Unconstitutional and void. That the clause in the Bin
Of Rights which declares that bail oush, no; TO
be required excessive fines imposed, cusf and ,
'aSI ssilment aGaiea" is role of aciion binding both