The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1826-11-30
II ONI& s,sF.tD,

q
n District --Chuncollof Ta,lor Inyu-
req itd y llcnmC to give additional sccnrit,
Tor the ieah'gl dlScha ~ Of his Office. pursuant
- the at ~ Assembly OF ith March 1928 emit
tied An a. 80 alter aud reform the mode nt
pioeesdns IN Tho Courts af (lancrrr' and Mr..
ttnine hfNug faded 90 give the additional S..
cnr'y required, a ruc heen served on him u,
TIM term u the 'irncral Court. 10 sheN cause II
any ht eau. why M information should not be f.
l'd againa him for his neglect We undrrstnnd
that III Denme, having tal d ~ procure tho &C..
cntGt, means to iolr, IN IN defence thr bload
ground that the law IN relation to him, is cr
post Jar o, and unconstitutional II - nncc,.
sas,isr thetrial OF the r,,le will come On Mt
Il term.
From Tho same paper
GENERAL COURT cdnsgdag Yor % 1926
ffeseni--ludgcs Brockcnbrnneh. Danlcl. Dndc
Stnstt, Johnston, Bpuldin, Somple, Allen. and
ER3u =es
Tbs lay cimc on the trial Of Wm W Hem
ing 'ipk Of tnr superior Court of Chnnccr,
for Tn richmond niairct, on an indictment for
a m'sdemeaaoi ~ office, ofwhch the substance,
as fellows:
That the said ilcning, under colaur sf his Of
ne a. 'le5e aforesaid, htd'traudulcnlly dcma.
aea ma eAaeted from Tho. h, Bryan Richard
\. Cunning lam and Others certain sums of mo-
SAL tlenlng
Counsel tof thoproseoutian the Attorney Gcn-
efal fof MI liening, Benz. Watkins Leigh anil
josiah Il. Albeit, ESnrs.
lhe1nff being mpanueled, Mr. Gee. Drnut,
Sheflli tor Prince George, proved the collection
bs him u one ofihc fee bills mentio,cd in ,br
indictment. and his having paid il over TO an Of
hcer IN tie AUDITORS Office
q BY Mr.. Leigh Did YOU take a r,c,,,,, -,
The person 10 whom you paid the money 4 hoy,
You the receipt in Court
10 tn, question Mr. Gee replying. that he
mao he' The receipt, though heWas nearly post
I've ta' &c Fnd takcn one-Aif Leigh objected
10 the competency of the evidence uroin, ,b,,
the receipt Of the person rcccrins tho ,non,,
vas tine best evidence ofthe payment and thar
II mus be produced it not being lep,l IN s,,,,I,
as contents by parrot testimony, uhile the re-
ccpt iiselfMasiu existence
inc Attorney General replied that the recrint
was notfhe best evidence of payment and ,bn,
an offering the evidence ofthe very nerson ,h,
had pad tn. money, TO prove is payment bc cr
tered the best Is ldcncc which The mature of ~,
case admitted ~ Wv
Nj Leigh rc-urgrd his objection 10 the com,
potency oil the evidence, Illustrating il BY 4, yori,.
" OF 'e~s aud example, He asked ifn,roI
e,'ae''p would be admitted To supply the los,
wv hldcl thf plea OF NIL dCbnf
sAlchhe alleged was a case IN poipt
me Atiomcy General commended that III.
cas- pat by Mr.. Leigh vas not analogous anl
cnqulfea II under the plea Of pavnent on ., nro
mssoi9 note parol evidence would M, hc yc,oi
ven 10 prove payment in whole or in mar,
ms ne conteuccd was the true analorv in ,b,
case pat by Mr. Leigh and thai beforc t5o CO..,
lie ouri gave their opinion sey;ob,r w.,
sustaining, Bonldn, Semple Summers RrocLcn
broash, and Stuart--for oye,,,,l,,n ~
Dade, Allen, and Johnston. '"'''''
The Court having sustained the ,,;o,.;.. T..
Ken to the competency OF the evidence h., M a.
Leigh "oc ny MT
The Attorney General said he sbo,,,
10 supply the evidence thus excluded h., 49,
acts and admissions Of VIM. ". ucn;n,, ,,nit
ing the tee bill in question Before he a. ~
ne would ask for Subpoena auces feon,, nm ~,
persons, then in Court, 10 produce tho na,,a,,
winch had been deemed necessary by tho e.,
Mr. Abbott and MIR. Leigh objected - 81;
course us altogether novel, unreasonable .na !,
regular Iheadiourument of criminal nroso
Tn,ioh Tor the purpose ofobtaining evidence a a
smheardof N'"NS wa
ahe Attorney General repealed the charge o
meshgeece on the part of the Commonveol,b
amass mad taken tu,n unforeseen bv. him nm,
sEoauced oy the course ofthe defendant himself
ft- thought that the Justice ofthe E.i3nt-,,ra.,,;