Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-12-04

rGcatioa: the Clerk offered bond " it'll other s..
curiiy. After making diiisen, enquiry a. to The
I snfiicency of tie security offered the Chancellor
iaa!ly decided ia rGe0hol the 4tli October,
1926. that it insult c.nt as,i certified cha, the
Siek had failed To give the additional security re-
quir-d III him
The Seaersi Court were OF opinion fJ,ssr
thi! dissen'ns) that a. the power of carrying ON
( these proceedings was no, expressly given to The
! Chancs.,or ia uacaion; as this YVES a penal lew.
ans: the proceedings under IL nigh, result in de-
pviving the defendant of hi- freehold the eq,,;yos
| csl language Of the act ought TO receive a con-
s,.uciion favorable to the iaccussl: That the law
INTENDED that the Chancellor should CARY on hi,
enquiries respecting tie nsniilc,enry Of the for
nier security, and the suiiciency of the new, and
should render his Judgment the whole M after ID,
eo1.: that 10y the copy of the proceedings, the
law attended the ccpy OF the record of The pro
ceedinss. which ought TO be Certified other re.
cords: that the proceedings OF the Chancellor in
rGcafion, We're, therefore, corani non judice; and
The cory Of them could not be given in evidence
| The Attorney General then offered in evidence
The aforementioned proceedings OF The CLancei-
lsr IA Term. in June 1896, and contended that as
that was an order to obtain additional security il
was the duty of The defendant to ske,r a conpiiance
with 1t. Bot the court decided that il was not an
o'der either absolute y,is; anil this render ell it
unnecessary 10 gay whether the buithen OF p,oo:
was thrown on the defendant TO show performer; Z.
The jury, under these opinions, acquitted The
defendant without retiring from the bar.
II.
rae Commonwealth On an adjourned question from the
| NJ. as,'a,, supspor Cont OF King Geo.
hssafd I"rnfr. 'cuEty.
| The defendant WAS indicted for wl!ully and ma
Iicious'y, violen'ly, cruelty, in,!Reder0tefy and
ercesire'y beating and scouiging has oica slare:
he !emurfed 10 the Indictment, aud the question
was, whether, according to our laws, the rhence
was an indictatls offence. The record did no,
present the question, whether such teiiing in
public, as 10 offend againi public decenry and pub
lie morals, could be punished offence contra
banos mores, but the simple question was wbe.
ther the master, in the exercise OF his power to
| chssise his slave could be indicted Tor treess in
| such chasts, rneni
The case was arsoed BY SianGrd for the defen-
dant, and the attorney Geyl.rGt Tor the Commons
wealth. Ths iiseu-sion enbi aced an extensive
range, built is not int ended al hi. t,ns 10 report
| the Arguments. The Court decided that tn. de-
nifrer Il nd he su-tai ed the offence not being
indIciahle. B'ockenbIougn ]. alone d scented, the
court cons sing of ten JUICES. This question,
whieh n 8 been much ssi;ated for several years
past, may be considered as .ettled 60 lar az
the judiciary concerned.
csnries Vor.Aan. '"'' 'N'e rum '''4''''
Decided Isl, hat where sn Indictment for
un SCENE snor is sent 10 a Grand Jury, with the
same OF witness sent 10 them By the court writ
should be namel a. Prosecutor, nor lisbie for
costs, although the Indictment is MT preferred in
consequence oil previous presen,ment by the
grand Jiry made on their own knowledge or on
The e'iImony OF witness called on eiheI by the
conr' or the grand jury: the word prfs.nia,ent
IN The eecond clause of tbs first pr0piSJ of the
4Hh section of the Act concerning criminal pro-
eeedinss, is to be construed in its enlarged SENSE
as including an Indictment, for the purpose o..
ehectuaing the obv ious intention OF the lesisla-
| tnre. From ibis part of the opinion Field snd
BouItir7i j. dissenel
z, An indictment which charges defendant
with playing at cards a. bouse Of public resort
Is good; tor, although the 9Th section oil the act
against gaming prohibits the p!s, ing at Ordi-
nary racefeld, or any other pubic place. and
lie words house of f-u5hc resort" are no,
wrhin The worde OF that seciion-ye, the l6h
section declares that every house of public resort
stall be deemed tavern, which is a pdblic place
| 1 he charge being laid in the very wurds OF the
ION section, IL is correc; ii laid IN those OF
the 5 h.
| .. The dismisSion Of former prosecution for
'he same offence, is an Informal nofYe p,os4gai,
AMI VIII not support plea of dnferfois acgm {.
ana VIII not support a plea of anteyf oIa aeQsit
l. y GtsMtssin is not a Telraaft, winch lat
Is unknowa'o the crim nal law, excrp, in {; se4 of
appeals for cri;es, and appeals sre not practised
| IN this county.
. a general plea Of nu.erfois oc9,.ii, which
n,
when, nIr other cirrum> snces OF the prosecution
trial, or acqaistsl 10 goo. The defendant VIII,
plead dueIJoiS dcq'4i, ought 10 vouch IL record
IL oil the same cont, or produce copy of il si
poiSHe, II oil another court. Counsel for The Com
monwe-lh, the .fttor"ey General and .sIayo:
Ior tue defendant Nicholas AID " aiam,.
H'i'''a'a r Finn, writ Error to Judgment u
rAs ce 9a,'1 i h.m s"'.s''F tut OF Ken
! /. 1be prisoner hal coavefra ion with wit
nessa winch he said bat V bat ''Mr. c. had styosn
TO in The examining court, was true, az for a. he
! went, bWNsdIhe hal mol told all or eauueh' The
conversation was interrupted at that poni nor wa
II again renewed The Attorney thea if.fed evil
denee 10 prove shat Mr.. G. Iwho had removed
/ LON lie Comnonwe ,thI had sworn TO on the
examination before the i,stces. Decided tina, the
conversation laid no foundation Whatever for the
Introduction OF the other evidence. The prisoner
made no confession OF guilt: nor did he confess
/ hat whai NJ. G. bad sworn to was uas. Ii
witness hns told the truth, but not the yyb lie truth
his evidence is not true. The cony salon OF the
prisoner, and the evidence dependant on il, ought
( both 10 have been excluded ON the jury. De
cided, alec, that although trials "a civil cases
/ rh'i witness ." ore 10 on FINER trial OF the
same Issue, between the same arties, may be- Civ
Ell in evidence, he ,UHy.sAs being since dsad.
! yet the rule does not extend to criminal cases
nor does II appear tbst tie rule in civil cases ex-
! ends 10 the adm i5sion of The eyidenre formerly
given by witness who has renewed beyond the
j1fisjici ion Of the cou: much less can il be adj
plusi in criminal case.
z. Tbs warrant for the apprehension Of the
prisoner esing offered in evidence, tie prisoners
counsel OBJECTED to II; The attorney for the Cnn
monwcsh ought TO have shown its relevancy, il
being a rule that wheo evidence is not pryna G..
cic admissible, the G. cnms.snces which render il
80, must bs set out.