Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-06-28

there was no error in overruling the motion for
new trial and that the facts forth clear case of
murder in the first degree. The writ of error was
refused.
4th. There another point in this case on
which the court urged 10 give an opinion:
nsmelys whether the Superior Cour, is bound, or
ought, to spread either the eridence, the fGctS
upon the record after conviction, and upon over
ruling motion for rev trial. The court however
declined giving an opinion on the subject, it being
unnecessary in this case, ard reserved IL for some
future occasion.
III. The Commonwealth Tlis was
VS.. an adjourned
Jao. CalIaghGn s. John Hollo,cGy. ) case from the
Superior Court of Allegheny county. The defeu-
dsnts Justices of the Peace, and information
was filed against them, in which they were charged
as follows: that at court held for Ike county of
Allegheny there was an election for the Office OF
Commissioner of the Revenue. and of Clerk of the
Court, when the defendants were both present, and
acting I'm their official character Magistrates in
voting in said elections; that the defendant Calaghan
IN said election Tor Commissioner of the Revenue
wickcdly ard curruptly agreed to vo.c and in pur-
stance OF said corrupt agreement did vote for
certain William G.. Holloway, in consideration of
the promise of the defendant Holloway, that he
would vote for certain Oliver Callaghan as clerk of
said Court: and that the defendant Holloway in the
said election of clerk eddy and corupiy agreed
W Nclcs ara IN pursuance o. s.d corrupt agree
ment did vote for certain Oliver Callaghan to be
said clerk, in consideration of the promise of the
defendant Callaghan that he would vote for the
said William &. Holloway to be Commissioner.
The defendants demurred to the information.
The General Court decided unanimously,
Isl .N'That the offence charged is within the
statute against buying and selling Offices ( LIST. Vol.
Rev. Co. p 559) because the corrupt bargains or
sales prohibited by that statute, are evidently those
by which the party bargaining or selling is TO
ceye profit, assurance OF profit di-
| recily, or indirectly 10 himself.
! 2i But that the corrupt agreement set forth in
the information il a mistlemeanor at Common Law
| FOR which information or Indictment will lie.
issue, which la. yet been tried
| Ill The Commonwealth This case was
: adjourned from
Join Bryant, aiias Hopkins. Ienrico. The
prisoner, convict in the Pententary, Ind been
ceive1 herea second time under for crime
He had mol however been sentenced o the increased
punishment prescribed by law for second offences.
he was then proceeded against in Henrico Superior
! Court under the 9Th section of the PenitentIary
act, and to tie information filed against him, be
acknowledged that he was the Zoe person who
had before been convicted, forth in the in for
nation. A doubt arose, whether the Superior
Court of lenrico could under the 10Th section sem
tence him to a portion of confinement in the SO!itn-
~ cells On reviewing all the acts, the court de-
! clueu the question III the 2ulrmanVe.
". The Commonwealth, This also ad-
iourned from Henri
George Ryan. co. The prisoner,
convict ia the Penitentiary had escaped, from that
| Building, and was retaken. The points decided in
answer to the questions adjoured were,
ls,. That the 54th section of the Penitentiary
/ law prescsibes punishment for convicts escaping
tiereirom: that the punishment consists in such adj
ditonal confinement and hard labor, agrceably to
The directions of,he act, and such additional corporal
! punishment as the court, (IIenrico) before whom
such person shall be convicted for said escapes,
shall in the exercise of sound discretion adjudge
and direct.
"a. That the proceeding against such convicts
must be By Indictment
V. The Commonwealth Case adjourned from
Grayson. The de
.qaron Gourd PENDANT was indie, ed
FOR an assault the October term. The court rose
without awarding any process
Decided in conformity with several previous
deci-lons that the failure to award process, prodl-
duced no djSconinuence Of the prosecution.
VI Francis Wehs, qsitanl Adjourned from
James Garland of Henry com
ty. 1t was information qui tam against an at
torney at law, to recover double the value Of GER
tain sum of money which he hid usuriously for
bone the debtor of bis client. The point de-
cided was in substance follows
If an attorney at law, having recovered judg-
ment FOR his client, and having sued an execu-
ion, then agree with he debtor 10 fordear the col
lection of The debt for several months in conside-
ration OF the deb,or's giving him (the attorney
lis bend Secured by deed of trust, for The pay
ment OF the debt with more than legal interest at
future day, dis is usury in the attorney, and he may
be prosecu Ell b, Information under thesecond sec
lion ofthe act against usury, alto the debt for
borne not his but his clients, ard alt o
tie might no, legally exercise the control Which he
did, over his clients execution
VII. The COmmomOealh) An Adjourned
VS.. case from Rus
John Linton. sell. The pri
soner was prosecuted FOR the forgery Of ban bond
in erasns tie name OF one security wiih intent to
deiraud tie ~ 0 otter securities.
This court decided he folio s. inc point:
&c Although some questions NAV be raised respect
ing the validity OF the bail bond from the recitals in
tie condition thereof, yet it appears that if Genu-
inc IL would be so far valid and substantially good
as hat tie persons whose names -ubscribel 10 it
night be ini red by il, and it is altered in material
par, prosecution tor the .orgery OF it may be
| sustained"
VIII. The Commonwealth This ap-
". plication for writ
.5Iassey Thomas. Of error 10 judy
ment ofthe superior Court Of Westmorelind, where
by the prisoner was convicted of man-laughter and
sentenced 10 two years confinement IN the Peuiten-
,iary. The Trial oil the prisoner had been proract-
ed beyond the first day. The court committed the
jury totwo deputy sLerifTs, who were daily sv orn
10 keep them TO. ether without sep ration, and with
out commu ico ol with any o hers, or the said
shcrIHs themselves, except on occasions of ind--
pc .sble uecessity. The sheriff placed rem in a
house, but in the course Of the night he suffered one
Of them atended by himself TO 20 the stable TO
have his horse fed; and on the following mo ning,
attended in the same manner, be permitted to
20 TO the stable on the me occasion, to 90 10 q