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

iier insisted that the court should shcw whctkerthe
prisoner was present o. absent the time OF the
causing ana press rIng, end at the time OF the asr
ing ami assisting, because his presence or ABSENCE
was necessary 10 determine whether he " as euv
Is accessory or as principal in the second degree
II Was commended, that the second count orghs
10 have been quashcd, because Hoffman was not
examined by the called court FOR ut.crinr ami
publishing the paper, kno,eiHS he same 10 Dc
forged
The same objection was relied ON in support of
ne motion 10 fuash the third count, with The adj
ditional one, that this count did notshe W tlatf
was made upon cath.
1t was further coutcndcd I'm support ofthe pc
nuon' that Tire court erred in permitting the forged
paper To go In evldSnce TO the Jury, because Tho
paper, alleged in the indictment 10 have been
! forged, IS described bearing date the 2sih os
Dccen'ber, 1897; whereas, that adduccd in eyi-
tencc bore date the 18th of Dec Is2s ar The nm,
1t toos passed d,cay
!he General Court, after examining the record
and considering the argument filed m support OF
the petition, decided that there no error in the
| proceedings; and the Petition for wit OF error
was therefore rejected.
Dinah Herbert * others, Adjourned case from
| John Hodges Norfolk ro,,ntv
ans was writ Oh right, upon which verdict
was found Tor the tenants, and the demapdants
moved for a new Trial. Whcreupon the cyidrnr,.
gwen 1.-THE trial OIL both sides, was taken down,
; ana The case adjourned 10 the General Court
nsre !. was argued ny hir. ID. w Leigh for the
The General Court decided that a new trial
might DE granted IN wit Of right; and that up-'
on The evidence III this case, new trial ought 4,
DC AWARDED the demandants upon the usual terms
'he commonwealth, Adjourned case from the
picker>on Wyatt tertield - oAs
an Information was filed against tlic defendant
IA 1szo Tor Keeping and exhibiting a gaining Ia
oie, Called Hap-hIZzard; otherwise called I,linr.
hazard; otherwise, called Snckup; otbervi.c
called Sweat, Icing gaming tabic OF ne sa,8p.
or NIX .!"G, ,cith Faro Bank" The defendants
P'eautd not guilty; and "a verdict was rendered
against NM Tie thereupon moved the eou,t ioi-
a new trial; and at u subsequent dav. witbonr
waving that motion. lie moved in arrest of Jude
nieht. The Superior Court OF Law adjourned II,
nc t'enefa' Court, Tie question, What judgrnenr
should be given III the case! And bv consent q
parties, statement OF the case made in writin.-
ana signed BY The Judge, made part of The
record bis statement sets forth the evidence
given the iai.
The case was ARMED i'm fl,a Conceal r.... A.
Mr.. b. W. Leigs for the defendant; and by the.
Attorney General for the Commonwealth.
~ was contended on the part oil The defendant.
Isl. That the terms Of the I7h section Of tI;,
act ior preventing unlawful gaming, which subject
10 corporal punishment every keeper or exhiiitor
OF any gaming table of the same o, ike k;,,d
WIN d. - u or T., ., OF Faro Bank, are of too
uncertain nature to he carried into effect:
indy. That the evidence in this case did nor
prove me gaming tablc TO be Of tho same or like;
KIND with Faro Bank; and
zist, IS23, which prescrbcs the punishment II,
TINS case, was Unconstitutional and void because,
OF the discretion, almost unlimited in lis nature
allowed 10 the Courts when ini!iciing HE punish
inent oil stripes under that act.
thc General court decided tl!at the rnot:on il,
arrest oil Judgment, and also the motion for new
trial should be ovcrruet; and judgment rcntcret,
aSa'Ast tic defendant according 10 law.
Joseph #hitaiord' Petition. for writ of err
The Commonwealth s c. Of Cbest te,li d, 'S
ne petitioner vas indicted of the murder og
" !lilail anderson by shooting himwit., a nun.
1teF NE Jury htd retired to co'sidero f their YER
dict, being unable TO agree, thew returned int
court 10 ask for instructions; and tDefeupon unor,
ms applications the court instructed the iury that
70 constitute murder in the first degree with re-
iefeEee 70 i'iis case, there must be premeditated
OF previous formed design to kill, but IL is not ne
ctsSdy thai his Fremcditatcd design TO RIM
siiGuid haze existed fur any particular length o.
tiWtj only necessary that il should be course.
ueteri"Iiateiy liked on, before the act done, and
not Drought about 6y Pror0sa.ioR at tie fine of
e 0cf, or So recently before as not 10 give tim.
Tor Teiieciioh; neither is il necessary 10 prove thi,
formed de- i'm by positive evidence. Like eyer,;
other TACT 1t may be established by ctrcumstantias
eVidence, which, beyond rational doubt conyinces
The minds oil the jury ili't this previous detcrmi.
ton TO XII did ia fact exist. fMe prisoner NJ ~.
GiPToached the deceased, and tehsi, he first eng,.
az p,c'o ., " nm at the distance Of about fin
yards Mc1ft funnel thus dcsign end cowc IN III,
"efeHI'"0ti0n 10 hiH he dcceused and IN n,,rs,,f
ance oi 'iifs design walked III IA quick pace. The
Sau Instance OF iiity yards, ard killed tie DECEASED
tpt"0"t any T0rOc0ii0H III e1l reccire il was nu,-
uef ~ the inst degree" After this in.tiuct;o,
Tie july found verdict aglil,s: -, prisoner Of
su"ty % murder III The hrsi degree; and he was
sentenced 10 be hanged. ~
The instruction which has bccn e.,,,l ,,,.. -,
part oil tlc record by bill of executions and !, -
appeared by herecori that the sentence a@,inst
the prisoner was pronounced Oh The 18Th III NJ
veInber, 1928. 49, " W
me petition Tor a writ Of error was prcsen,ed .,
the General Court by MIR. Samuel ravior .s co
sci Tor The accuscd and contendcd ior /, deGr;,;n.
OF murder IN the iirst degree which should rcomi
longer Time Tor deliberaton aud preneditaton ,baI,
'he superior Court OF Law had cop,iJe, cd nsn.y
sary' IL was urged by him that the Lcgislatyre
ia'e enumerated particular cases which con
sN,ut 1 murder ~ the first degree; thus, tbat
u."er Pe'psuatcd by means Of poison by Wing IL,
"'', Dy durssS OF imprisonment or cot,tinetoco,
ny starving, or by " iliu malicious AMI pxcessiye
"hpplng' beating or other cruel Treatment or for
sure, Il murder ia The first dcgree: and eenorsI
piOsIsioh Deng then inate, that any ether Kind q
wilui' ueiOcrate AMI pienieditdted Killing, shaIl
oe ihuflsr 10 tie hrsd degree; vas aIgued tl,at a
proper construction Of the act, iecu:rcd as Inuclx
dehbsration and premeditaton IN the cases am
oraced ny This general provision as IN the casesl
particularly cuunoratcd. 10 give the act thfu
construction, it was contendcd tirt 10 ,yors
"Snei" ought 70 he considered Gas ipse TED so A.
TO make IT. any other such kind Of jlful delibcr
ate and rremeditated "killing."
The General Court not CONSIDERING fl,,t tho nor,
sirncuon conicndcd for by the counsel Vcas nc
proper one, decided That there was no error in tIs
opinion on lhe superior Court Of Law Arother
erIoI WlSh was suggested 20 exist in Che record
~ Va. NAV we sentence was Pronounced on tho