Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-12-04
under the act Of Assembly; Blu. the General Ccur,
deemed i; unnecessary to decide that question.
WIN. b. Giles. Governor Of Va
at the relation OF Fadely .,;.,
eS'r OF Weaiherley, rpou .,.n Use use

| l.. ]
at the relation of Fadeiy
from the Supc>
! ~ o.,.. r,:,.. ct r. nc iior Court of
rior Court OF Loudoun s. hissuic-, fo"uou''
ties
The General Court were unanimously OF opinion
that the Clerk himself was liable for all the
quences ola. mistaken the discharge OF his OIL
cai duties; and majority OF the Judges also
opinion that his sureties under the act of Assem-
bly, were equally liable. And the Court therefore
decided (n answer to one Of the questions adjourn
ed In this case) that Clerk and his sureties IL
able ior gross negligence, or for such negligence
as may be implied from the fact Of his issuing an
execution variant from the judgment.
- -. ror TO judgment OF the
The Commonwealth. Superior Court o." OF Harri-
The petitioner was indicted under the s,h sec
ton Of the act regulating crdnares, for selling by
retail ardent spirits TO be drank the place where
sold; he was convicted and adudgcd to pay the pc
naty prescribed by the act with costs. 1t appear
ed by bill OF exceptions, that the trial OF the
indictment the defendant moved the court to in
sruct the jury, that il from the evidence they
should believe that the liquor alleged to have been
sold by the defendant was the produce OF the de-
fendant's own estate or distilled by him, il law
fui for the defendant TO retail the TO be drank
where sold without 6Tst obtaining license there
Tor; and that the Superior Court refused to give
such an instruction. The writ Of error was appli-
ed for, because Of tho refusal 10 give this insruc-
ton.
II contentled in support Of the pc itian that
the rroyiso contained in the 18th section OF the
act refused TO authorize person who had made
liquors lrcm the produce OF his estate, or had
brewed or distilled liquors net only 10 retail such
liquors, but 10 retail them to he drank where
sold. The General Court was OF OPINION that this
construction ought not 10 be put upon the act; and
rejected the petition.
John G. Primer s 0ihers}, Adjourned case
rs. : from The Superior
David Prices admor. SCOUT of surry
| Samuel e'yeriield Adjourned case
as. fiom the Superior
Alexander Henderson, Court of Wool
| Those cases were adjourned that there might be
an interpre taton by the General Court Of the I'D
section oil the Aci,resula,;ng proceedings in civil
I, suits.
| The General Court decided Ist That 50 ought
to be awarded on every Office dismissior, produc-
ed by voluntary abandonment, OF he cause by
the plaintiff; and such diSinission ought TO he
entered up as nonsu bat thai tbs disassiou of
cause for failure 10 give security for COSTS is not
such voluntary failure 10 prosecute authorizes
| this Judgment; and
IDLY, That if the plaintiff disms. or discontinue
his suit, alter the appearance OF the defendant,
judgment Oh Hon-snit ought 10 be entered, and So
awarded, except III case OF Il yeiG.cit when i,,ds-
ment for the 50 ought not to be given.
Henry Huffman } Petition for yri. o. CIR,
as ror 10 4 Judgment OF the s;ii-
Ihe commonwealth perior Court of Hampshire
Court OF Hampshire was called los the exam
inaion OF Huffman, who was charged with hay
ing seionousy forged and counerieited, aud pass
ed single bill or note, purporting TO be anotc
made by VIM. Dn!ing, with his seal thereto atfx-
cd, tor the slim of $40, bearing date the 18th day
Vi Dec. 1927, and male payable To Henry HUI.
man, y months after date, 10 certain VIM S,,ey
fard oil Hampshire county; and the examining
court rcmanded the prisouer for trial be fore HE
Superior Court of Law. In the Superior Court
AN Indictment was found agains, the prisoner con-
tanning three counts. The first count churrcs that
he :. iclonoury did falsely make, forge ald GOTH
tR r . IN, "A fal nstrl,y "a
be falsely made, forged and counteyfei,et. and f,-
lonoualy did willingly act aud assist in the false
making, forging and couniefic;ns ii certain false
writing which is described bearing date the
ZSh OF december, 1927, and set forth ia htre rey.
%; and the act is alleged have been done 10
The prejudice Of the right OF I'm. Dul'ng aaL
with intention 10 injurc ard oeiraud hG'' The
second count charges that the prisoner tcIono,,sl,
dih utter and publish, :nd employ Us true Tor his
own benefit, certain other iase forged & cou,,-|
tcrieitcd writing, which is described and set forth
az IN The st count; the intent is charged TO be 10
inJurc and defraud the said William Du!ine: and
The prisoner is aYerred TO have known tile
same TO DO false, forged and counterteite,l-
The third count is like the second except that The
intent 10 alleged 10 have been TO injurc and de.ratd
WIN. Sherrard, and except also that il is no, stated
in tins il is in the two preceding nat ,b
1rand jury found The same upon their 0gtb The
second, However, shews that the Grand Jury 1reyc
sLC0rze.
Upon being arraigued, tie prisoner moved .bc
court TO q,,asli each count i'll the indictment and
Proiuceh copy OF the record of the exaini,i;,e
court Which was made par, OF the re cord i'm this
case. lie motion was over-ruled and the pri-
soner having pleaded not guilty, was put upon his
Trial. On The trial. witness for the Common
wealth produced writing corresponding itll that
set iortiin the indictment, and testified that ON tho
i3'h OF March, 1928, he in the employment
OF " m shcrrard, who merchant, and OH
mat day The prisoner took up goods in the store
and assigned the said paper-writing in psyt,enl:
'hat shortly alter the assignment, the witness dis
covered That the paper writing dated in IS2S.
ana upon stating that circumstance 10 the prisoner
he (the prlsoner) remarked, that it had been so |
dated BY WIN. Ouling by mistake, and thereupon !
erased Tie bgure 9, and Inado in lieu thereof the |
figure ., SO as to change the date from 1925 TO !
lozf. Upon this evidence the prisoner moved the
court 70 exclude the said paper writing from the |
Jury; but the court oycr-ruled the notion and tie
prisoner excepted 10 the opinion. After which the
jury found verdict against the prisoner; and he
was sentenced TO imprisonment in the Peni,en- !
uary.
~ was contended in supper. OF the petition for A
WIZ o. error, that tie motion 10 quash the first
count OF The indictment, ought 70 have been sus.
i.hed Tor the following reasons; first, because
tloninan vas only examined by the called court
i0T the forging and coun,eflei,ing alleged in tins
count, aud was not examined for the other facts al
legged therein, 10 witt the causing amt Dyoc,iyf,o
the paper; 20 be made, forged and countcrfci,eI i.
anu the oct'ng ant assisting in the mixing Cora.
ing ano counierieiting the said paper and second.
", because OF detects apparent the face of the
sad hrst count. In relation TO the second obiec
ton, !, was insisted that the count sbouiJ set r,
She,G Of Hampshire at The time that yyri; was is
suen 10 expose TO sale those goods which he had
.sHeh. inat person had taken no goods, and |