Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-29

II probable tia, tie assault had been made
through revengeful feelings, was. therefore, Of
opinion that The exclusion Of evidence Of that
kind, furnished no ground Of The writ Of error.
The only question was, as 10 the provoking and
abusive language used on previous days. As
10 this point. the court WAS OF opinion, that i'm
mediate provoe ai,ons only, or such rs are
plainly part OF the res gesfd, received 80 re-
Gently that the blood has not bad time TO cool,
could properly be received in evidence for the
parpose stated IN the bill of exceptions and
that The Superior Court OF Orange, did right in
rejecting such evidence az was offered by the
petitioner /; he, not having khewn on tile record
the relevancy oil TINT evidence To the issue join
ed. The petition for the writ of error was,
therefore. rejected.
Samuel Walker, pin writ of error TO judg-
VS.. }nent OF the Superior
The Commonwealth. Couri Of Henrico.
The petitioner was indicted Of larceny in
stealing a watch ofthe value Of $50. and a
chain, key aud seal of the value of = the
property OF Elizabeth Bolton. On the irral Of
the indictment the commonwealth, after adj
ducing testimony 10 show that the watch bad
been taken from the house of the owner, and
Was found IN the possession OF the prisoner,
introduced a witness who proved that he went
IN pursuit OF the prisoner 10 Norfolk that on
his arrival there. while ON board the steamboat,
The prisoner entered the cabin, that the prison
er accosted the witness in familiar terms, and
the witnes; nioImed him that he had come 10
get the watch, the cloak and Mr.. Ihomas bill,
and that an alteration ensued, in which the
prisoner denied that he had taken the watch
and INSISTED on leaving the steamboat in spite
ofopposition. The witness, also proved, that
although he and the prisoner had boarded to-
no particular in macy had existed between
them. On cross examinations, it was proved
by the witness, that there had been some deal
ings between the witness aad the prisoner, III
relation 10 pair Of pantaIoons bought by The
witness Of the prisoner. TIE Attorney for the
Commonwealth then asked the witness II ne
md sold tie prisoner he cloak iohlch The PRISON.
or hal carried army. aud directed the cloak -
be brought IN. The prisoners counsel object.
ed to any inquiries being made as h. the cloak.
contending thai that was a separate irGnJacii0n
for which there was n separate Indictment pen
ding and that II could not operate in this case.
he court, however, decided that tine question
mlghtbe asked, and that the conduct OF the pr,
s0ner respecting the cloak (Which il WIS al
legged had been carried of by him from Thom.
as boarding house on tue same day dat he
carried ava, the watch from Elizabeth Boil
lst. Because the inquiry Of the prisoners coun
sci, as 10 he witnesses purchase OF the panta
looms from the prisoner, lei in the question as
to the cloak & 2Jy g. principally because the
conduct Of the prisoner in carrying away the
cloak on the same day that he carried Oft the
watch, vas admissible TO prove the intent with
which the atch was carried of, IL being con. !
tended bg the pris ner that The watch was loan
ed by EllzabPth Bolton TO him The court declar. |
ing al The same ttme TINT whatever might be |
the motive Of he prisoner for carrying Off the |
CLOAK, ire jury could not convict him on this
Indictment unless They were tisG d that The |
loatch was taken with feionious intent. 10 |
the opinion OF the Cont, permitting an enqnl. !
~ rs TO the prisoners conduct respecting the !
cloak, bill ~ exceptions was fled.
The jury found the prisoner guilty i" of the
larceny aforesaid, N manner and form as in |
the indictment against him is alleged, f." and |
they ascertnincd the term Of his Imprisonment
IN the Penirenliary TO be two years. Upon this
verdict judgment was given against the prs
oner aud lie applied lor a wnt of error to
that Judgment.
Upon this application, the case was argued I
by Mr.. Schmidt and Mr.. Niche for III. peiitio-
her, and by the Attorney General for TIE Com.
monwealih The application for the wit res
led upon two grounds 1T, The opinion of
The court permitting evidence TO bc gwen of .
The commisvisn of another of nee thah that .
charged IN the indictment and IDLY, The want /
II a fading by the jury in their verdict, that
he goods stolen we're oil the value OF ten dol
lars
The General Court cons. dered the obj- sion
10 the verdict as not tenable. The prisoner was
indicted OF Grand Larceny; the jury found
nun guilty OF The larceny of waich he was indie
ed aud they affixed 10 his crime, punishment
which could not be applied to p'iu larceny,
Dlt was an appropriate one for Grand Larceny.
The verdict Of the jury was n sufficient fading.
hat the prisoner was gailtyof Grand Larceny.
Il would have been ,urp usage 10 have added
hat the goods stolen were upwards of The
value of ten dollars.
But the Court was of opinion, that upon well
'ettled prlnci pies, tho evidence Ms TO the car
'y'ng away OF the clock, was inedmissl-
Die. II was u distinct charge which the
prisoner was not called ON to defend,
which he could not be prepared TO de-
end, and which had no such necessary connec-
ION with the transaction before the court as
o be inseparable from II. Upon the ground
hat this evidence ought not to have been I'D
niiied, the judgment was reversed by the u.
lanImnus oplnon of the court the verdict set
side. and new trial awarded.
..=-.s.c--.---.---y---.----.=---