The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1826-12-11


uasI.lyion, DtrfHbtf ., 1870.
--..--------..--.--.----
r.o,, ,,e Richmond Enquirer, Deernberl.
GENERAL CoURf.
,,..-,, the Inst trln of this Court, the following
Juno cases were decided.
Jackson Vs. Marcel.
r..arnent was givca by justice of the peace,
= dc County Of Lewis, ia favor OF Jackson,
e. .lowith interest and costs ; from tins JudS-
,,,,,t Maxwell appealed TO the County court
anJ tbe appeal was dismissed, ON the ground
t'.tjt had been improyldently granted. Maxwell
,t..n filed petition in thai Court alleging sarl-
Wv, .,yo,nds why the justice ought not To have
W., Judgment against him, (lll of which
~, the merit, OF the decision, not to the ju-
.sdicton of the justice,) and concluding by
ZINC for a writ Of prohibition the wit of
PLib,iion vas awarded and ultimately, was
Ill absolute by the County Court and
I,rtson. thereupon, applied to the Superior
Law for writ to prohibit the County
to,,rt rom further prosecuting or enforcing its
-, awarding a like writ TO the justice OF the
80. Upon this application the Superior
ff,,n,t of Law adjourned to the General Court
,,e following questions for its decision lst Can
,bs srit OF prohibition be awarded by County
ca,rt in any instance ID, If the County
Coort exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the
,.,;, ought the Superior Court to award a writ
rrobibiting the County Court from enforcing IFS
rrrder and Sd, What Judgment ought the
Sanprior CoufT to render on the whole preni-
eos In reply 10 these questions, the General
Court certified is their opinion, that County
Court has not jnris diction by prohibition IN any
instance and that when County Court shall
,vceed its jurisdiction by granting such writ,
,be Superior Court Of Law may, and ought on
nropcr application, TO award wit of prohibi-
hon to such County Court, prohibiting the fur
tber exercise of such jurisdiction, or the enforc-
ine any order or judgment made under colour
thereof.
anderson vs. TIE Commonwealth.
Samuel Anderson was indicted IN the superb
or Court of Chesterfield for that he being a
married man, one Elizabeth L. iIardgroye, Il
maiden and unmarried and under the age OF y
wears, that is 10 say, ottho age of l6 years ,
mouths aud ID days, having no father living,
and being then and there under the care and
custody OF Elizabeth Hardgroye, a widow, her
mother, did cntice, inyeiglc, take and carry a.
way from the care aud custody of said Eliza
beth Hardgtoye her mother, Tor the purpose of
prostituiing and cainaly knowing her, the said
Elizabeth f. Hardgropc.n In second count
OF the Indictment, the offence was charged near
" in the same manner, with this addition, that
the said Samuel Anderson A." did possess him
self of the person Of her, the said l.. +. II. aud
did afterwards dehower. carnay know, and
prostitute her Upon this indictment, Ander-
son Was convicted and amcrced IN the sum of
$1,000, and the Court supcradded the punish
ment of imprisonment for Two years and SIX
months The General Court, at June term, on
Aldefson'S petition, awarded writ Of error
and At the las term the causc came up for deci-
Sim nuun the me ,ton ,1l1ptltpr the offence of
which he had been COM iced was ii miSdemcdu-
or punishable by Indictment at the common la"
Tha class af misdencanors " INN which II WAS
insisted ihlS offence vas comp ehendcd was that
Of offences cpntrd 6OHOS HiGrtS oter whcn The
Courl OF hing's Bench in England, and the SIT
pIor Courts Of Law here, have always claim
ed jurisdiction. twas admitted that before the
Statute Dr. clrcRmSp"cie dgntiS, IL OF I'd. |. tie
Court Of kings Bench did. upon this principle,
punish the offence oimcontlcucy and that hy
thai Statute the jurisdiction was transferred 20
the Ecclesiastical tJuts. Since that statute Il
seems that the Common Law Courts have ne
yer taSen irni,dietjuu OF the mere oilcucc at in
CONTINGENCY, nor OF any oHcurc Of incontlncncc
combined with other reprchcnsiblc circmnstan-
Cts unless those circumstances in themselves,
imported common law mlsdclncanor In this
Country tho l. 5.s.dtu.e mas t4Ncn ny the SUBJECT
OF supple tOrncltiOn and adultery aud has de
miea precise mode OF proof and a hAtd AMI
SeIlaln punishment Inc "cncfai eout did not
regard these Statutes as cumulative. but is oc-
clP}ms the whole ground, aud came to the
CONCLUSION that ihc statutory crlnmd'liy OF the
mr. act OF heohuarhfe. must he ihro"h on, OF
ule case ana that the ihalcuhchi sainst Ahdtf-
sun eouia not be supported, unless the other en-
Cuahs'a'ices Amounted 10 the Common Law ms
uflhfahof' II they had made ont conspiracy,
e'e prosecution might have been maintained
bat the Court was of opmion, that IN this cast no
oheahs 'ance existed exclusive OF the act OF M
coh'hnnce, which amounted to such misdr-
neahot' Inc judgment OF the superior Court
" Id" WAS ll'efei'', reversed
NoIt-lh MS ci'se docs not come "uhm the
va 4f "s '''lsi 'huuc'ion an" seduction, thai ''p-
ping o"ly 10 ha'o'ns f'Ht" the age oi ak
''s" 11'',.
-. o""2H"'HtHt y. hHGeS y y ta'
IN The Superior Court of Albcmdflc, the
".@ 49 1'''y presented . pNid 1sdacS and N9n-
y nes'' tree mu'"tto woman. ior ontra my
~ P,e'Cy "i s9ati}, aad violating thS law,
al The iaud BY CohdhitIng together Ia 4 state of