Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-11-24
GENERAL couRr-,re.faesdav, Nor. g. 1926.

| GENERAL COCET-Uye,incsday, Nor %, 1926
| Present-Jndgcs Brockenbrough, Daniel, Dade
Stuart, Johnston, Bouldin, Sempc, Allen, and Sum
, ,ners.
! This day came the trial of YIN. w. Heuing
Clerk OF the Superior Court of Chancery for the Rich
rnond District Indictment for misdemeanor in
| office, OF which the substance is fuows:-
~ hat the said Hening under colour OF his Office as
Clerk aforesaid, had frauduleny demanded and act
ed from Tho. B. Bryan, Richard n. Cunningham and
Others certain cf money for records never in fact
made out by the said Henng.n
Counsel for the prosecution, the Attorney General
For Mr. Henng, Benz. Watkins Leigh and Josiah b.
Abbott, esqrs.
The jury being impannelled Mr.. Gee, Deputy Slcr
III Tor Prince George, proved tue collection by him of
one OF the fee bills mentioned in the indictment, and
his having paid II over 10 officer in the Auditors OF
fee.
e BJ Mr. Leigh. Did you take a receip, of the
person 10 whom paid the money and have YOU the
receipt in Court?
10 this question Esr. Gee replying, that he had moi
ie receipt though he was nearly positive that he had
taken one-Mr Leigh objected to the competency of
the eV'dence urging that the receipt of the person re-
cevinS the money the best evidence OF tue nav
tne and that must be produced, being legal To
supply ITS contents by parol testimony, while the re
cept itself was in existence.
The Attorney General replied that the receipt was
not the best evidence of payment and that in offering
the evidence OF the very who had paid the money
TO prove IFS payment he offered the best evidence
which the nature of the admitted
MI. Leigh re-nTged his objection TO the competency
OF The evidence, illustrating tby variety ofvens and
examples He asked parol evidence would be admit
ted to supply the loss of romssory note under the
plea of nil debet' which he alledged wnsa case in
point.
The Attorney General contended that the case nut
BY Mr. Leigh not analogous and enquired if under
the plea OF payment on prom;ssory note, parol ev
dence would not be received TO prove pa ynen whole
or in par This he contended was the true analoc,
in the put by Mr.. Leigh and that before the Court
The Court gave their opinion Seriatin, For sus-
tanning, Bcuidin Semple, Summers, BtoclIenbroush
and Susrt-f1r ovcrrung, Daniel, Dade, Allen, and
Johnston.
The Court having sustained the objection taken to
the competency of the evidence By Mr.. Leigh
The Attorney General ID he should proceed to sup
ply the evidence thus excluded, by proving acts and
admissions of WIN. w. Henng, touching the fee bill
in question. Before he did so, he would ask for sab
Pcna duces fecRm on two persons, hen in Court to
produce the papers which had been deemed necessary
by the Court.
Mr. Abbott and Nh Leigh ob ectcd to this course as
altogether novel, unreasonable and Irregular Tie
adjournment OF crinua! prosecution for The purpose
OF obtaining evidence uuheard of.
| Tie Attorney General repealed the charge of ncrli
gooce on the part of the Commonwealth. Things had
taken turn unforeseen by him: and produced by The
course OF the defendant himself. lie thought that the
Justice of the Country required the delay until 70 NOR
'ow asked for by him. for the production the Receipt
| For the motion Summers, Daniel Datle, Allen,
Johnston, Brockenbrougi,, Stuart.
Against it-Bou!din, SernIIs.
So the Court agreed to give tmo for the production
Of tie Rcceipt-and the trial of Mr.. IIening was adj
journed until TO morrow.
Tawvdry, e3d.
TIE trial of WIN. W. EEening, for u,iste,neanor in
Office was resumed.
MIR. Gee. the witness, having returned from Prince
George, produced in Court the receipts yesterday re-
! ferreG 10,
| q. By Mr.. Leigh, To whom 81 as the money collect
ed for Mr. Hening the subject this prosecution paid,
and by what authority
The witness stated that il had been paid to Mr.. Lee,
Clerk in the Auditors Office and by the written order
OF Rir. fleming. Being asked IL he had that order,
he replied that lie bad not, and had been unable to
find it.
MIR. Leigh then called for The production Of tie or
! der, which he contended was material link IN tie
chain Of evidence. He urged that neither the receipt
was in Mr.. FIening'5 hand writing was the order
directing its paymcn; TO MIR. Lee Produced-and that
there other proof of exaction and extoron a.
gans Mr., ening, than his having made out tie fec
/ bill. The not impossible, thst il bad been
made out 10y another person Than Mr.. HeDing without
! his knowledge consent.
! The Attorney General replied, and conieuded that
The oder could neither be produced, If il could was
all material IF necessary, be should contend tl,at
lie prosecution had already gone far enough in tic pro-
dac,on Of evidenceaud tia, having established tic
making ont Of re extorsive fec bills by MIR Hening,
and their collection by legal officer enough had been
nroy ed tO cOuyict the Accused Of the TnsJe,neauor