Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-30

tust The I,xr
long since refused TO do ~ " ivy "ao
hno.her evil on which he called upon the court
70 Jay tneir hand, is this practice of nlown, ~,
ndiydal to be made the subject NJ ne,v ;n.su sa
p.cSehec" ~ constant succession dey nftcr DIV ~,
~. s'.;e oie"u Jury. lilo insisted let this was
E"ss violation ut Justice und of tho ,rs.,. r. -
EnSlsh courts, where the throvin,, f., u ,uS
muic'ment was complete discharge of ,ba s . y
IL was not allowed To tamper with Grand
VIM H'. VI wnen 'ney have now been tnmpered
VIZ. Any one tampcrng in this manner hottie -
traverse Jury would be liable to proscc,,,;o e.
~ ie', mere, as soon as an indictment is ;ono,
,";r.d . one 'o'ae"' ee,os is presented. He main
uCcuseu was at liberty to GO thereof wbou, H. 80
III the nrNt term aud thut il would be mons,r &c
nc coulu not lie sustained himself OH this ,,o;n,
oy reference 10 Blackstone and Jacobs Law NJ
tionary. A-"" Lie
presentnent ofa jury is recorded to all time nv
,he result ofthcr delberation under solemn oath ma
tiey nrc now called upon 10 record IN all 49,, a.
condemnation oftheir own conscience in ~ ~ sue
SAL "t their own solemn decision. He DECLARED IN
!nc Vpu'Se o, ms argument that, he on grand
- nI W9u,u bSleh Ia no evidence of crime even IL
involved the safety of the country unless Tho ,v,
ness was sworn To the matter of some spcci;c ac.,
s"ion' referring again TO the fact which no re ss
s.teu 'hnt not particle oftcstimony was taken nm
o''h ny inc grand jury any of these indc,n,,n,,
ne regarded II as ompous of n state of th;n. ar,
s' 1'sastrons to individual liberty and on
oii T"uI ;, mus loose proctice ofswearinp gen
r'dhy, much EVIL might arise On the second dS, g
tue term, number of witnesses werc s,yorr =; 10y vi
eral terms. 20 give evidence Si,pnose !, W.. ~ gen
~ sne witness on charge of perjury or malicious
prosecution. You go to the Jury and saw ..Yo,, -
found bill now tell me upon wlnt evid.ro ~ "'.o
whose testimony this found" Thor ,ns,,. ~
are bound by oath not to disclose ,Dh,, ~,
ASK ara thus the object of The prosecution H.
-" ne ieIctrfu again TO the fact that tho accv.oa
w inns case, had been imprisoned ,ocrelv IL, $3.50 1880
vi '"c iftilclnl manner in which this IN 40 no,
- inr more than two months and Tim,
ll'de 10 suffer ali the punishment of pult I, 10 n
admitted that the of this denv il ~ -; Wv
l"' "u"th'r witness 10 come from Pensacola. ,;,
Mss VINO might have been here six or seven u,oos-
ago. was only produced to day; and Tins ;ns,aaJ ~.
having the head and front of his offence =, ,J W
uu presented against hun, the accused il made ,ho
WIZ" oi Protractcd and interminnblo ucrsec,,,;
nlr ~ >. Coke then took up the argument ON he .a ~,
re sad tins was motion without any 6Ipl,; s,e siae.
es, r. - -, 40 'euncnt b9'ore the on which Il ear,
~ entirely new question the court Al tho ] presented
anv revy az ., INC oar has right of the court
some niatter IS in court which sush apn;ca, o' Until
osrece tlal any such can be THIS is a mo,o e
co 10 take up an parte proceedings ms The s,I 70 the
c,on II the grand jury had found what lev had b .er
court have permitted eounstf m the aons would the
no!on Tor the court 10 instruct tho jury to take s,.e, una
o' he law! lie cnntenued that il alngeh.y ,r,oi.
put this motion tins time eS"e' "c'eVant 10
fae TeeTcd to the influence Of the Covcmmen, in ,.
Inc ohicet who summons the grand urv Roll ~; s oar.
pleasure Of the Goycrnuent by whom he E a. at rne
district attorney appointed nv the m apPonsSd Tho
Once at their pleasure. The proceedings of tho ;nrv @ us
me aocScdIs guoraDt Of the evidence before ,hsn. - RI
whole of the matter is directed law ,bo S. ueh' and me
organs The spir and theory our institutions ,.an "
e Government IS paeIna aud have no o,Isr r;s, IN
10 protect the administration OF Justice How sr a
practice may differ, for him to saw Ne i sory ana
S " protect INC public good, the prnciples of i
NC, Slu me equal adminis,fa the law the Go.eS
would require aids from the court wbrb ~,
present ' @ gwen 10 others Al the advantages in die
r. uiS' are an tho side ~ tho Government ard an
Ire interests 81 the individual arc lost .gh, If =; III, ano an
privileges such a. ,hn' @ accused had been entitled
voi,j H. -, DIS NOSE claimed hy tho opposing co,ns.i
| uloy hoi nave asked tho for insr,c,ion. ~ 81
various other points IN which they might have tLoh a on
ool5ursd estb"ouy eS' tue "schiofs OF Parts and
IonGsd s grand Jury against the charge ofhaviny mis-
understood 'c law bcc % nat hey had shown that they
ne court had sustained the grand jury in their opinion ,b, e.
abs,,,c, ,e ooHn'tPh That the alteration ofre
''' a'roIhts 10 forgery will hv g.
Sohse, Tor such Prccnce would he in dirccI onnoS!,o
ncot 70 show ne OF n's court He referred the udg
Wncn had already been before court to show ~, s
wa IN that which the jury had ignored the anne nete
ascnsAon as there those which the co s,ouno on
,ie argued that unless it should apcar tha, whoi i
C nounS'anco forgery had been committed the S,,J
u 1aru he decision ON the Judgments of tho court Qua
urc uiu pe an evident ncompabiy in giving 10 tbs ,
!Iuc'i'n' to come 10 different result lie nIso yesgy
me niNt"re Of legal ncrrnccs drawn by the counsel s % 70
r1o, nn were mixed up with the iac specified in I'm,
lc c'r had already decided that the charge Of for e r
abstract and I've co"en5 Sustained 3y tho alterations Of
WAS crime to conceal fraud already pcrpotraed ''
H t"No ihen said, that after the luminous view yyh.L -,
@ , r oy MT Jones, he would trouble the co, with
IT, u',l tomorrow morning 10 prepare his arcuincns
"'1'u'' expressed 'hcr aequiescencc
= D On Saturday. Mr.. Swami rcplied 70 Gru
jones' and Gen Jonos, Mr. Key, and Mr.. Ccxo. o,so
spoke upon collateral points. Cen Jones in bis
replication exempted tho Counsel for tho prosecu-
ton from the force Of ms observations tho dav before
charging oppression upon tlc prosecution. Mr. Ko,,
attempted to rc'aato, by charging that one Of tho
Council for the accused, had in company with son
OF DIR watkins, gone before the Grand Jury. the oh
Jcct OF which could only he, to transfer public M.
t'h'ion and odnm from the accused TO some other
person. Mr.. Coke acknowledged thnt he WINS fbo
person who had gone before the Grand Jury. bu,
dchedthat 1t had any connection with the Guilt OF
innocence orDr. Watkins Quore--IIns Mr.. Coxo
presented Amos Kendall for false allegations in hIs
qDdnvW We infer that the affidavit was tho sub