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


pronounced on the 18th of Nov
The petitions assigned for error, that the YER !
iictof the jury and JUDGMENT OF the court were |
rendered and pronounc" alter the term Of the
coOrthad been legally ended.
The act ia Rev. Code, p. 800. sec. 2, provides,
that each OF the Superior Courts of Law shall
ST until the business thereof shall he Dispatched
unless the Judge holding the same be compelled
% leave the cour, in order 10 arrive in tine Ut the
aext succeeding court " his cit cuit the Gen
Court; and in p,ge 2l9, Sec. /, il provided that
che General Court shall DC holden the 18th day
'of November.
There xas sor,e diversity of opinion among tl,c
Judges OF the General Court TO the construction
10 he put upon the 81 section oil the Circuit
court Law oboye cited. Some considered that
when the hour arrived, a, which il would be ne
cessary for the Judge 10 leave the circuit in
crjer 10 reach the General Court OH the day APP
pointed FOR its session. there absolute n-
;aton OF The power OF the circuit TO sit; and
thc proceedings after that time would be wholly
void. While others Of the Judges thought tina,
tiis section not to be construed as prescribing
auch an absolute limitation supposed; but
that was only to be regarded as directory TO the
Fudge. This direction he might depart from at
Ills own responsibility il he thought that /,
cesslry or proper 10 do so; and such departure
would not he attended with the effect OF making
void his proceedings. This question. however, il
was not necessary to decide. Though it appeared
by tho record that the sentence pronounced on
the 18th OF November, ii did not appear that il
pronounced after the hour had arrived at which il
court in order TO reach the General Court and for
augbt that appeared jrdicially TO the' General
Court, the Judge oil thc Superior Cour; might have
acknowledgement at an early hour in the morning OF
she Ash, and have had sufficient time after
wards to reach the General Court on III. same day
The General Court had not much difficulty as to
any of the other errors that assigned in the
proceedings and the petition tor writ Of W as
rejected.
The Commonly J Adjourned case from
y ~ tpttrt
1anev Gentry s his suitors Of Montgomery.
On the 18th OF September, 1927, the defendants
entered into recognizance before two JUS
tees of the peace conditioned that Laney
Gentry should appear before the Superior
Court of Montgomery on the first day of the next
term TO answer an indictment lor Bgamy and
shoul1 not depart thence without the call OF the
court. AT the next term Of the Superior Court
the default OF Gentry recorded and a sum-
mons awarded sainst him and his sureties, re.
turnabe 10 the succeeding term, TO shew cause
why sodrcilcias should not be issued upon the
recoSnzlnce. At the term 10 which the
mons was returnable, Gentry appeared in Court:
and the suretics offered him "A witness to shew
that In consequence OF wounds received by him he
vas unable 10 attend to the April term; they also
offered 10 prove by sthdayits and other evidence
the inability OF Gentry TO attend, and the Superior
Court OF Law then adjourned sundry questions to
The General Court for its decision.
The General Court decided in answer to ,hese
questions,
lSt. That Gentry is not a competent witness in
behalf OF the surees TO prove his wounds and ira
bi.ity to attend at the April term OF Montgomery
court in 1928; and hat the court ought not 10 he ar
him.
IDLY. That if the atidayits prove to the salts
faction OF the court that Gentry, from the wounds
he had received, so disabled and crippled as 10
sender him unable 10 attend 1T the April term ac-
cordIng to the condition of his reccgnizance Nhe
said Gentry having afterwards at the September
term appeared in couTD the court ought in the
exercise Of sound discretion to decline awarding
y in tlleS /,
ces; and
3d!y That afiidsvits are admissible in such
case without requiring the presence of the wit
in court ii the court should be satisfied that
they have been fairly taken and shew clearly and
fully the matters Of excuse for sparing the recog-
nizance.
The Common wealth , Adjourned case from
IS. the Superior Court of
This was an information against the defendant
for nuisance, in erecting mill dam across Little
Creek, in the county of Nottoway The original
information contained two counts: The first count
charged, that by means of the said DAM tie wa.
tiers of the said creek had been rendered stagnant
and emitted divers unwholesomc scents; and cor. !
.uded TO the great damage and common nuisance
OF all the citizens OF the Commonwealth III the |
reigbborhood; and the second count charged that
by reason of the dam, the waters overiiowed and
remained upon land there situated, to the great |
damage and common nuisance of certain person. |
(who are particularly namcd) and the citizens of
fhe water-cOursc. To this information the defsu-
can't pleaded not guilty and at a subsequent tern.
the Attorney Tor The CommOnwe alth, by leave of |
the Court, filed an amended information. The !
irSt count OF the amended information, charges |
that the water Of the course became great
W corrupted, and by means thereof noiso,ne and
tnwhoicscinc smells did from thence arise so that
te air greatly corrupted and infected; and it
concludes TO the great damage and common mi |
sance OF all the citizens OF the Coinmonw calth not
only there residing and nhabiting, but also going !
returning, passing and passing by the same and /
tue second count OF The amended information i, !
ike the FIRST, except that it concludes TO the great
damage and common nuisance OF all the citizens of !
the Commonwealth. The defendant filed general !
demurrer TO the amended Information; ard tie STU |
perior Cout of Law adjourned the case 10 the |
General Court for its decision, az 10 the Judgment
which should be given upon the demurrer
The case was argued in the General Court by |
Mr.. Chapman Johnston and MIR. Spooner for The |
defendant; and BY the Attorney General tor the |
Commonwealth
The General Court was Of opinion, tiat TO sup. |
poit this prosecution for public nuisance il ought
- DC alleged and proved that the Instructions psc
ed in Little Greek produced n stagnaiion OF the |
water thereof, in or near d pujiic hinh1cay. or |
some other place i7l acici Tie pHJHc hare sye- |
ciai interest; and the information not having any
such allegation, the court decided that the dcnur-
rer thereto ought to be sustained.
~s Motion on the official !
-,,o1 T,r,Ien ~ ~ e bond Of the clerk TO re- !
,ha S,noyior Co,rf ~ cover public taxes re- |
Kanawha & his sure,ies. 'e''c" ~ MIN
The General Court was o( opinion that the off. |
cial bond Of the Ccrl embraced only clerical du !
tes, properly called. and that the condition of
0ie boad did not extend 10 the default complained
Ct in the collection and uIyuen OF The taxes on ii. |