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


pretended, was that of offences contra bonos mo
res, over which the Court of Kings Bench in
England, and the Superior Courts of Law here
have always claimed jurisdiction. II was s,im,tei
that before the Statute de cirestmspecte az ats 10
of Ed. /. the Court of Kings Bench did, upon
this principle, punish the offence of incont ency
ard that by that Statute the jurisdiction was trans
ferred to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Since that
statute it seems that the Common Law Courts la e
never taken jurisdiction of the mere oTenceof ncon
tinency, nor OF any offence Of inconnence COM
bined with other reprehensible circumstances, IN
less those circumstances in themselves, imported a
common law misdemeanour. In this country the
| Legislature has taken up tie subject of simple
fornication and adultery, and has defined precise
| mode OF proof and a fxeI and certain punishment
The General Court did not regard these Statutes as
cumulative, but as occupying the whole ground
and came 10 the conclusion that the statutory crm-
inalify OF the mere &C, OF inconiinence, must be
thrown out of the case; and that the indictment
against Anderson could not be supported unless
the other circumstances amounted 10 Common
Law misdemeanour. Ii they had made out con-
/ spiracy, the prosecution might have been main
tanned; but the Court was of opinion tha, in this
case no circumstance existed, exclusive OF the ACT
OF incontinence, which amounted to such a mis-
deNeanour The Judgment OF the Superior Court
of Law therefore reversed.
| NOTE This does not come within the
Statute against abduction and seduction, that ap-
plying only TO maidens tciihin the age Of sixteen
years
The Communicable vs. Isa0cs g. West
| In the Superior Court of a ibeinarle, the Grand
Jury presented g David lsaacks and Nancy West,
free urla,to woman, for ouiragins the decency
OF Society, and violating the laws OF the land by
cohabiing together in state of Illicit commerce;
! as,nan and wife, without being lawfully married"
! Upon rule to shew cause why an information
should not be filed on this presen,ment, the de-
tendsnts appeared, by counsel, and after hearing a,
motion TO discharge the rule, the Superior Court
of Law adjourned TO the General Court the cues
ton, - Whether admitting the facts presented by
the Grand Jury 10 be true, information will lie
! Tor the said offence al the sui, OF the Common
wealth." The General Court decided that The
present ment was good ground upon whichio a.
ward rule to shew cause why an information
should not be filed against the defendants for an
act OF fornication, upon the act of ASSEMBLY but
that II did not furnish the ground of any infor-
! nation against them as for common law inside
mesnour
1he Commonwealth vs.. Leyman Peck and
| Others.
In these cases several questions were Adjourned
from the Superior Court of Albeinarle; ard the
General Court in answer the eto decided,
LIST. That Individual who takes a chance in
a rafile at $50 chance, or any smaller sum where
the property rallied for exceeds $40 in value and
the rafting takes place in private house, docs
not come within the act to prevent unlaw full gam
ing.
2ndly. That an individual, who takes such
chance, and ralss aforesaid, and wins the thing
ratified for, does hot come within the operation of
the law.
3iy. That where the value of the property
rallied for exceeds $50, bu; the prize is won by two
individuals in partnership, and the value to each,
when divided, does not amount to $50, they do
not come within the operation OF the law; and
4,hly That an individual, who tax es a chance in
rattle, cannot be considered embraced by that
amendment OF tie Gaming Law, which subjects
the vendor or purchaser OF lottery tic,.e, TO
pensl,y.
Smock vs. DaGe
Smack sued out OF the County Court OF Orange
an execution against Dsde; and, at the ensuing
term, Dale moved the Court to quash the execu-
ton, on the ground that the amount of the juds-
ment, on which it issued, had been paid TO the
Plaintiffs Attorney before the emanaton of the
execution. In support of his motion, Daie pro-
duced receipt, signed by the Plaintiffs Attorney,
shelving that he (,he Attorney had received
portion OF the judgment in money; the bond of
another person for part, and draft upon some
other person tor the residue, 50 which, when paid
will be IN full Of the execution" II was admitted
that the drait had been paid, but no evidence was
/ !.
same had been returned accounted for to Dade
! The County Coult quashed the execution; and to
this Judgment Smock obtained supersedeas, which
was allowed on his entering into bond it'll security
in The penalty Of $50.
| On the record being certified to tie superior
Court OF Law, that Court adorned The following
questions for the dsision of the General Court:
| LIST. Ought the Judge to have directed bond and
security in The penalty Of $63 33cls1 and does the
law, respecting an appeal by the plaintiff or de-
mandant, apply TO Viii of Error or Superse-
deas'
! 2nd. Does the law authorize the County Court
to quash an execution upon such evidence as was
before it, and did it do right in quashing such
cuuol?
81. All and every question arising on; of the
record.
The General Court was Of opinion, that the
Wri, OF SupeTsedeas was properly allowed, aud
that the law, respecting an appeal by the plaintiff
or demandant, has no relation TO Wriis of Errors
or Supersedeas In regard 10 the questions which
hae been made by Counsel, whether the remedy
should not have been by dUdfa queTeIa, and
whether the motion should not have been submitted
10 jury, the Court was of opinion that relief
may be given by motion in all cases, where, by the
ancient practice, the party would he entitled TO an
oUdita queTcia; that where the claim of the party
TO relief depends matters of fact, the Court may
in its discretion, cause them 10 be submitted TO a
jury and such course is particularly proper where
the evidence is contradictory, where it may au-
thorize Conflicting differences, and either Of the par
ties Is DESTROYS OF referring il TO that forum; but
that this case did not fall within the rule. The
Court was further OF opinion, that the authority of
the Attorney TO receive payment OF debt which
he is employed TO collect, does not extend 10 its
Communication without the consent of the Client