Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-12-04


ihe petitioner was indicted Tor stealing goods,
which were laid in the indictment to be upwards
OF tlie value OF Ten dollars ami the jury found
verdict inlthese words: I" We OF the Jury find the
prisoner, hiehaTd Poinderser, guilty Of petty lar
ceny.' a motion was made in arrest Of jud ginent
and the following errors assigned: -. -
lsf. That the verdict - not against the person
named in the indictment, but against Rishd. Pom
lie xter. - -
2dly. That the Indictment charges an offence
which amounts TO Grand Larceny, and the convic-
ton by the jury is OF Petty Larceny. c1--
3diy. That the jury by their verdict have not
ascertainei rs hat goods were stolen, the value
Of the goods stolen, so as TO enable the court 10 as
certain whether the offence be Grand or Petty
Larceny. .a. $3.50 .e.-
4'hly. That the jury have not ascertained whe.
thcr the goods stolen forthcoming or not--and
5thly. That the verdict does not sheyy what ar.
ttcies are not forthcoming, their value, TO
show the court for what Writ Of restitution might
be demanded. 4r 1888
The Superior Court Of Patrick overruIed the
motion ID arrest OF Judgment and pronounced SEN
tence against the prisoner. The General Court
was of opinion that the mutton in arrest of judg-
nept was properly oyerryled and rejected the PEE
uiion Tor writ OF error.
The commonwealth, } Adjourned case from
rs : the Superior Court OF
An Information was fled az ainst the defendant
Ter knowingly permitting unlawful assemblies OF
negro slaves more than tive, other than his own,
10 meet upon his lot and tenement. The iDforma-
ton was grounded upon the latter clause of the
18th Section Of the Act concerning slaves free
negroes and mulattoes," which is contained in the
LIST Vol. OF the Revised Code, page I24-and the
questions adjourned arose OF the construction
TO be put upon the said latter clause of the 18th
Section.
The General Court decided that il was not ne.
cessary, in order 10 convict the defendant prove
that the negroes and slaves, over the number Of
five, remained the defendants lot or teneI mt
hon k,s a..
remained for any period OF time, however short
It satisfied tile ortis Of the Act The expression
las permit in the clause alluded to, the court
Was OF opinion, referred TO the k,oWledge of the
defendant, mentioned in the preceding clause,
and not 10 the time OF the negroes slaves re-
manning.
The court also decided, that as the information
charged the Defendant with permitting an assem-
biaSe OF negro s!dres. the proof ought to cores
pond with the allegations; and therefore that II wa.
incumbent on the ComMonwe aI,h 10 prove that the
negroes assembled were SLAVES. But whether
such proof would have been necessary, if the in
formation had pursued the words Of the Act OF As
scInbly, tho court did not decide.
Terrell Biedsoc, f. Petition for a writ O error
~. toa Judgment of the Supe-
The Commonwealth, ) rior Court OF NJ oniy oinery
Inc petitioner was indicted for stealing "a slave,
and upon being arraigned, pleaded to the indict-
nent, and moved the court for u continuance for
reasons set forth in affidavit filed By him This
motion was overruled, and the prisoner was tried
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in th;
pcniteutiary. Md the writ OF cIror was asked for
upon the ground that the Superior Court erred i'm
everything the motion for continuance
Whether the decision of Superior Cour. on a
motion Tor continuance IN criminal case, is sub
iect TO lie revision OF the General Court, is a a,es-
lion which has never We, been decided by ina,
court; aud the court did not deem 1t necessary TO
decide IL III this case. For the court Were unaui-
nously of opinion, that the affidavit Of the prisoner
ard the matters therein set forth, not sufi
cient to eDtitie him 10 continuance of the cause
@i,d on this ground, the petition for wri, Of error
was rejected.
HIept q blackwell, Adjourned case from
Is. the Superior Cour. OF
The plaintiff moved tor Tine against the defen-
dant as Sheriff OF Hampshire, for the failure of
John Sinsleton,hls deputy, 10 return writ Of rea-
fHtio'si capoHGs. Ii appeared i'll evidence, that
on the 9th DAY Of June, 1923. writ OF Geyi facios
was issued in the OF the plaintiffs against the
goods and chaliles OF A. Banc and a. L. Bane
which was directed 10 the Sheriff Of HAMPSHIRE
and placed in the hands OF J. Gibson, deputy for f.
McCary, the Sheriff, in due time 10 execute
Gibson delivered the wit to Singleton, another
deputy ios McCar,y, and return was made
by him that he had levied the writ on Ger
tain goods which were no, sold for want
OF bidders. McCarty went out Of Office in
September, 1923, and died in August following
and IN .hc 81 Of April, 1876, the pIainils suet.
Ioi tn the writ OF riI,ditioni ernoDas for the
This writ was issued by virtue of the 5Ist sec.
ton oil the act concerning executions but is in the
form prescribed by the 23d section Ii is directed
Is 10 the sheriff Of Hampshire county," and com.
inands him TO expose to sale those goods and
e" chattels of a. Bane and "A. 5. Bane,' 6. which
according TO command yois have taken and
which remain III your bands upsod." No men,
,on is made in the writ OF the levy and return of
the feTt Jaetas by Singleton as deputy for McCar-
iy; or Of the subsequent death OF MeCarty. Al;
the time ot issuing the viii OF reudit,oni eIDo1os
the defendant Kuykendair was Sheriff Of Hamp.
SHIRE, and Singleton one OF his deputies; aud
the writ was placed III the hands Of Singleton in
due time 10 execute. After the time ~ which .he
notice was FIRST gvan,but be fore the term at which
tile motion came on, Singleton returned the vinGi-
ItO,ti etpOHds with the following endorsement 4
money made and paid 10 the plaintiffs attorney,
John Singleton, ID. $. Cor J. x i" The plaintiffs
said that The latter part oil the returns was false
Snd offered 10 produce testimony TO prove that IL
was. But tIie court declined hearing such tcsti.
inony at that tituc, and adjourned sundry cues.
lions 70 Che General Court questions OF novelty
aud difficulty.
The General Court decided in answer TO The Cd,
BIZ 18th and 9Th questions that the re,,disio,,i erDo.
mas should be regarded having been directed 10
the defendant; he being the sheriff Of the county
at The time oil issuing OF the same; that it was re.
ccfved by Singleton as the deputy Of the defend
ant whose duty il 20 execute and return IL ~
Is prescribed by the SD section Of The act concern
ipg executions; that the defendant is liable 10 be
hi,cd ior the said Siugieions failure TO return The
said writ, which inc should notnccesssrily be a
nominal one because Of the wits having been re.
turned whilst the motion pending, but the a.
mount OF the bre should be regulated according 10
the circumstances Of tbs case as they may be
sbewn in evidence.
The Let question adjourned was whether The
writ OF veDGitoni ezponss was duly end legally Il.
MI in, f.-