Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-07-22

helther Tor the defendant against him IL is me-
yesSafy 10 nave verdict on the Indictment and, a
'his Is not such an one, u cannot be received
Considerable discussion followed and anthor los
were cited by the counsel ON both sides To sustain
their respective views Judge Thruston inclined 10
tho opinion that the verdict should be recciy-
ed. ami its effect settled afterwards; what that
eject should be, he could not. wit bout
undertake. 10 say. Judge Morse disserfeH from
ts course; If the Jury do not find general verdict
uiid mean To find special one, they must find IL
III the common form-tIe one they bad brought in
was OF neither character it said nothing in relation
TO the fraud and not such an one as ud,,nent.
could be given Chief Judge Crancb who had
been SHORT time absent from the bench lavinp ta--
zen ms scat and consulted with his brehren,) inima-
tedto the Counsel the course which the Court was viii
ing 10 adopt, winch wusto inform the Jury of the
Insufficient character ofther finding and 10 permit
thein TO go back TO their and revise then YER
uct 1t they chose TO do After some conve-sa-
ton between the Court and the bar, in which Mr.
Coke objected TO the course proposed insisting that
the verdict rendered MAS in effect verdict of ac-
qnttal, and ought to be receivcd-the jury was
lJws:
The Court informs the Jury that .hey have doubts
Vnether they can, upon the verdict the Jury have
ocicu TO return, give final Judgment either for or
against The deicndant; because the Jury has not found
whether the money was received by the defendant
with fraudulent intent nor whether the money re-,
celVcd was tie money of the u. States; and that if
ne jury choose To retire and reconsider their verdict
ia 'hcse particulars, the Court Will permit them to
DO so."
The Jury then retired TO their room. and in about
htecn minutes returned into Court and handed IN the
ioowing verdict; The Jurors in the case of the u.
states against Tobias Watkins find him guilty of
"ntaillng 100 dollars, money OF the l.. States in his
"lcial capacity and OF apply the saneto his own
dcd. - WI" 'N'O'
The Counsel for the defendant apprised the oppo-
site Counsel that they should require Judgment OF
acG'iItai' No proceeding however, was now moved,
a"u "o'hihg lurthe6 IN the case done to day.
we observed on yesterday that the Jury had not
Iouhd the FRAUDULENT INTENT with which the $3.50
were appropriated by Watkins; BY which omission it
seemed 20 our humble knowledge of law, that the
verdict was not responsive the charge and that Of
course no judgment of punishment could be- allowed
by the Court. the fraud heng the jist of the whole
matter. This omission by the Jury, could not have
been accidental. when Sa4cd in and given perylis
sion 10 amend their first verdict they were expressly
Told by the Court, that the finding of fraudulent
intent was a necessary foundation for the Judgment
OF the Court Refusing thus to find any fraudulent
intent the inference is logical, that they intended to
negative that constructioa Of Dr. Watkins conduct
On this point the National In'elligencer SAYS.
Our readers will see, in another col1nn. the course
Of the proceedings Saturday IN the prosecution ot
T. Ufins. and the present singular situation of the
case. The Counsel for the Defendant mean 10 claim
Judgment OF acgulttal the verdict rendered bv the
Jury, aud the CouHStS of the Government il is un-
deTstood intend To move lection Of the verdict as
insufficient, and have n new trial. These motions
Will be made and the questions argued, we spresume
to day. Their decision rests with tie Court and on
their decision it is probable depends whether the
800 dollar case will be tried not.
From which it appears that This knoty case is still
distant from conclusion.