Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-01

bail, as such evidence should satisfy hs uirt, tina,
the suspicion of guilt was light or s,roog?
3dly. Is the judgment of the Examining Cour,
and the finding of the Grand Jlry conclusive Of the
probable guilt Of the prisoner, so as TO exclude the
examination OF testimony by the Judge upon a mo-
ton 10 be let to bail
The General Court decided the 81 of the above
questions, in the negative, but WAS of opinion,
that under the particular circumstances of this case
the Superior Court ought not to have gone into the
examination of witnesses, or the dispositions taken
in the Examining Court, for the purpose of ascer.
tanning the degree OF suspicion of the prisoners
guilt but ought to have rejected his motion to be
let TO bail, because it appeared that the Common
wealth deprived of soa,e testimony impor,an,
In the decision of the prisoners motion
Commonwealth VS.. Ch,l5b
The defendant was convicted In the Superior
Court OF Henrco OF misdemeanour, in violating
the act OF the lth OF February 1925, 10 prevent
the sale OF foreign Lottery tickets within this state
On the trial OF the indictment that court instruct
ed the jury upon the questions of law arising in
the case The most material OF these instructions
was, that 1t man opens Office, from which he
vends assurances or guarantees, substitutes tor
lottery tickets and Tor the purpose OF evading nd
defeating the law, although he does not sirictkV and
literally sell lottery tickets yet he does sell those
papers which are substantially lottery tickets, if
1t can be proved, or inferred from the evidence.
That the vendor holds the tickets themselves for
the benefit OF the purchaser.-In the instructions
The defendant alleged there msdireciion BY the
Superior Court OF law, and moved for new trial
on that ground; whereufon that court adjourned to
the general court the question, whether there was
snch instruction In the instructions! The General
Court decided that the Superior Court had not mis-
directed the Jury but afterwards for reasons assign
ed Ivy the defendants counsel aside that deei-
sion and continued the cause.
Gases Of Original Jurisdiction.
The result OF the Indictment against William
w. Hening, Clerk OF the Superior Court OF Chan
Gerry holden in this city (lor eXtosiion) was stated
~ the last Enquirer. Mr.. II. was acquitted
Oher prosecutions were instituted against hm du-
ring the last term After previous rule TO show,
cause; an information was filed agans, him Tor
'aiiing to give additional secuIiy CLERK OF the
said Superior Corrt of Chancery pursuant to am
order OF the Judge of that Court made under the
act OF the 7lh of March 1876. But the trial of
the Information was postponed. On the las, day
OF the term rule was made agains, him TO
show cause at the next term why one or more in
formations should not be filed against him for de-
handing more than allowed by law, and also
Tor demanding fees for business not done L. .,.-
merous cases.
During the term, rule was also made against
Peylon Drew, Clerk of the General Cccgt, Tor no,
ton was afterwards filed, but the trial was deferred
at the defendants instance, ill TIE next term.
Conway Robinson was appointed by the Court,
assistant Clerk IF ths Court
ELFSWe a.e honored in the last Tuesdays N.
Intelligence with its promised Vale,lcory article
IN reply TO the EIquIrer--occupying some or
columns OF that - gigantic paper as a cotrm-
porary Editor has lately baptsed tiff the depth
OF this eabsra'e article had in any degree cores
pended to It's length, we might well despair OF an
swe1lng its contents: but with true diplomatic
dexterity, 1t has avoided almost every propostioA
which we have advanced as to the sound theory of
the Constitution. 1t has arrayed no general ar
guinen,; it has directly encounter ed none that "
have urged but has principally con,ented Itself
with hunting up few musty iacts-a few obi c
dicta, and few legislative measures, which wefe
adopted without sertafim examination of the
constitutional questions. rhall probe their ar
uc!e, as soon as we have room; and perhaps on
Tuesday next pay cur respects to the authors. We
must repeat our regret al taxing the patience Of our
readers.