Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-01-17
FOR TIE E.Mor1REp


10 THE LEGISLATURES OF VIRGINIA..
III consequence OF a decision of the General
court at Its last Term, that in miSdemeGRoy case
arising under the gaming laws the Counsel for the
defendant was precluded from arguing question
OF law, III opposition to the opinion Of the Court
pronounced upon formal application of the At
'orhey Tor the commonwealth; / find that one of
your body has asked and obtained leave IN brin, in
bill concerning the trial by Jury His avoved
oDectls to authorize Counsel in all such cases to
argue before the jury in opposition 70 the oninion
OF the Court, and if the Counsel for the Defendant
mas tins privilege, il cannot be denied 10 tho Coun
SCI ior the Commonwealth, where the opinion Is in
favor OF the Defendant If this be So il NAV no
wen TO consider whether the title of the hill i: mot
palpable misnoIncr; and whether instead of % a
blii concerning the trial by jury ought hot to
'Oe entitled &" bill to authorize and enable Conn
sci, engaged in misdeme amor cases 90 pervert the
law thereof, and to provide means bv which DIFF
ierent Jurles may establish different and contrar
principles OF law in the various courts of the Com;
monweaitf.' That this will be the inevitable cf
iect OF such law, think il easy to deinonstra+e
The member, who asked leave 10 brine in III
Dill IS reported to have said, that the Jury in mis-
ueIneanOr and criminal cases, had the yjobi to do
cde the tar as well as the facts Of the case-that
the effect of the decision alluded To- vas ,o IN
fringe this right, by depgving them of the means
oil exercising II Observation-Disclosures that ae tbis
was the first attempt of the kind on the part of tb
Judiciary, II ought to be checked at once. If he
Is right IN these positions, it will be easy to prove
'i'Diii pIcir VIC iicNl Oelerdi Court. where fftn
question, 1t seems, is 70 be re argued and FINALE
decided. 1t cannot be doubted, but that tbe ind
ges, who as have heard, invited the attention of
the members Of the bar TO the subject on former
OCCASION and asked their assistance will ,vil1inol
retract an opinion which has neither law. nor re-
son, nor precedent to support it. But differ from
the respectable member in all his positions CON
lend that II never has been decided, and scarcely
ever pretended, that the jury have the riehf TO
decide the law IN criminal, any more than in civil
cascs-and that counsel never were allowed in En-
grand or III this countryto argue questions of law
10 the jury IN criminal civil cases in oppo,ition
20 a formal instruction asked for and given upon
the point The UnicesaI maxim is, al qunsfi6nis
jVTiS respondent JUD1cEsaSsd q,ttstioneDa fqcfi
TePOHaent Jur0tOTcs. IN both civil and criminal
cases the jury have the po,cer to find a general
Verolct' ana the only difference is that i'm civil
case pcy were formerly subject TO an attaint ri
they ms'ook the law, and now new trial may be
granted whereas, in criminal case, no new trial
can DC granted 1t the finding Is IN fap0r of the
prisoner; not because the jury have The right 10
I'M the law contrary 20 the judges opinion but in
FeSpcctoI inc maxim, That memo els pGnefr Af--
VENATUR pro eodem deiicto The igDle9ia1e and
urea nght OF deciding questions Of law, is. there
ioTe' sth In the judges, Will 6. in the Jury, IL is
ony Wc"eRfoL and IL ought tote exercised nv
mem WIN all duo Difference to those, who. from
hagl education and study, are presumed 10 he
better capable Of expounlinz the legislative mind.
10 say nat whcui' ias been fhus exosunded. ir