Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-12-01
GENERAL COURT.
During the last term of this Court, tie following
Gases were decided.

During the last term of this Court, tie following
Cases were decided.
Jackson VS.. .MGIICeN.
Judgment was given by justice OF the peace,
Of the County of Lewis, in favor of Jackson, for
$40 with interest and costs; from this Judgment
Maxwell appealed TO the County Court, and the
appeal was Dismissed, on the ground that it had
been improvidently granted, Maxwell then flied a
petition in that Court, alleging various grounds
why the justice ought not 10 have rendered judg
rnent against him, Cali of which go to the merits of
the decision, not to the Jurisdiction Of the jus
iice,) and concluding by praying for a writ of
Prohibition; the writ of prohibition awarded
and, ultimately, was made absolute by the County
Court; and jackson, tbereupon, applied 10 the
Superior Court of Law for writ to prohibit the
County Court from further prosecuting or enforc-
ing its order, awarding like writ TO the justice of
The peace. Upon this application the Superior
Court of Law adjournedtO the General Court the
following questions for its DECISION: is, Can the
writ of prohibition be awarded by County Court
IN any instance? ID, II the County Court ex =
ceeded its jurisdiction in granting the writ, ought
the Superior Court TO award writ prohibiting the
County Court from enforcing its order' and Sd,
What judgement ought the Superior Court to rem
der on the whole premises? In reply TO these
questions, the General Court certified es their o.
pincn, that County Court has not jurisdiction by
prohibition in any instance; and that when a
County Court shall exceed its jurisdiction by
granting such writ, the Superior Court Of Law
may, and ought, on proper application, to award
a writ Of prohibition 10 such County Court, pro-
nlbl,ing the further exercise of such jurisdiction, or
the enforcing any order or jIdgmen, made under
colour thereof
anderson We. The Commonwealth.
Samuel Anderson was indicted in the Superior
court Of Chesterfield for, that he Z" being a mar
red man, ore Elizabeth +. Hardgove, maiden
and unmarried, and under the age OF II years,
.hat Is 10 say, of the age Of 16 years months and
~ days, having no father living, aud being then
and there under the care aud custody of Elizabeth
hardgrove,a widow. hermotber, did enlice, invei-
sie, take and carry away from the care and custo-
" OF said Elizabeth IIardgrove her mother, for the
purpose Of prostituting and csrnally knowing her
'ne said Elizabeth +. H1dgrove." Ia second
eount OF the Indictment, the offence was charged
neatly in the manner, with this addition, that
we said Samuel Anderson " did possess himself
O The person Of her, the said Il. f. II. and did az
Twards leftover, carnslly know, and prostitute
ger" Upon this Indictment, Anderson was con
y'cIed and smeiccd ia the SUN Of $1,000, and the
SSouTi superadded the punishment Of Imprisonment,
r two years and six months. The General
Nouri, at June term, on Anderson petition, a.
awarded wfil of error; and at the last term The
spse cameup for decision, upon the question whe-
yer the offence of which he had been convicted
Is = D'sdemeanour punshabe by Indictment al