Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-12-08

table, and take Up to-day TO obtain the sense of the
rouse as early as possible on the question, whether the
time oil the present Governor expired on the 9Th OF
March. the day when his Office had commence in
is27--or whether IL expired the usual time of the
year Tin this month
After some conversation between Messrs Zones and
Miller. the Resolution was laid upon the table
And then, on Mr.. HARvfE's motion, the House ad-
ourned till this morning 10 o'clock.
Yesterday the senate was duly orsanized,-and APP
pointed their ormer Officers. viz
Mr.. Addison Hansford Clerk
VIM. Holt, E-q. Speaker.
MIR. James Sawyers Serg.eant at Arms
Me'sr' Lulsberry Ailen& NJ. p
Julius Martin Door Keepers.
Mr.. John wsrrock, Printer
They received the Governors Message the fst and
2nd Auditors and Treasurrrs annual reports-sand
adjourned to meet thisday at 10 o'clock.
GENERAL COURT DECISIONS
Our columns have been much occupied by the
Proceedings OF the Convention. since the adjournment
oil the General Court that we have had ain oppor-
tuni'y Of laying its Decisions before our readers We
seize the present occasion for that purpose;
Cases decided in the General Court at NoreuJer term.
1929. 800
Present Judges !Stnart, Brocken5rough, Smith, A.
len, Daniel, Sempie, Parker, Field aud May.
joel Letwich, Pitt. } Adjourned from the
against Superior Court Of Ka-
The defendant (Lews) sued out of the County Cour,
Of kanawha writ of eapias ad respondendun against
the plaintiff (Leftwich) to a plea Of debt; and
that writ being returned mot found an was
awarded against the estate Of the plaintiff force an APP
pearance The attachment was issued accor,;ng 20 ~.
form prescribed in Robinson's Forms page 2. No. 8.
that Is to say there prefxed the precept of attach
nent copy OF the order rules awarding the same:
IN TINS order the names OF the plaintiff and defendant and
the sum demanded were distinctly stated and the at.
tachment referring TO the order required the sheriff to at
tach the estate o The ADORE named Joel Lcftwich 10
satisfy and pay the ADORE mentioned sum Of &C. and
the COSTS. Upon the attachment the sheriff made a
return, stating that pursuant tciihin tparrant of
attachment he had levied the same on negro slave
IL af,l NtI.A
Alter this return, proceedings had at rule, in the
usual manner, and the plaintiff appearing the Office
Judgment against him became final. and there was an
order for the sale of the attached effects.
TO this judgment writ of supersedeas was awarded
oy 'e Judge oil the Superior Court and that Court ad-
Journed the case to the General Court for decision
Inc case was argued in writing, by Charles r. Bald.
win Tor the plaintiff in error, and by Joseph L. FRY for
the defendant in The following errors were re-
lied upon: -
ist That the return of the sheriff upon the writ OF
cdp'ds Of not tound sufficient return 10 Law
e loundauon Tor an attachments it not appearing by the
dwelling house or place of abode of The defendant
End That the attachment was defective in no where
setting forth the name of the plaintiff
3rd That the return the attachment was defective
IN moi staung to whom the property attached belonged
In support of the End. and 3D. points Cyay VS. Netison
o. Rand 596 was cited In relation the first point the
General Court decided that upon return nv the sherG
on writ of capas ad respondead,,,n in civil action
that the defendant is not found the plaintiff NAV sue out
an attachment against the estate of the defendant to force
Il
the sheriff has left copy of the writ at the DWELLING
house or place of abode of tho defendant.
Inc court was oil opinion that the second point was
NOT sustained by the authority of CIay vs. Nelson
or upon examining the record in that case il appeared
hat the order at rules not copied and to the
preeePt oil attachment Whereas in this it was
prexed to the writ of attachment was referred TO in IL
and, therefore, constituted part of it,
me Court was also opinion, that the decision in Cla
vs. Nefson did not sustain the third point In that
there defendants and the attachment was Iev;d
on single ox-cart, without its being stated TO which OF
them 1t belonged Here there only defendant; and
the sheriff pursuant TO the process could take no ocr
property than his. Having returned that rrs,.anf IN
me attachment he had levied certain prosperity the
sheriff. in effect stated that he had levied the
on he property of the defendant.
Upon the whole case the General Court certified as
TO he affirmed .
Alfred r. Davenport pitt. Petition for writ of err
The Commonwealth def. SUPP Court of Heo q, Ine
Inc petitioner was indicted for stealing free boy of
colour lhe indictment charged that the said Alfred
H. Davenport, one muatto bow named David Cesar
who was then and there free boy and not slave (he
me SAID davenport then and there knowing him. the
said David Caesar, to be free) feIoniousy did steal
take and carry away To this indictment the petitioner
demurrcd. His demurrer was overruled and no wa.
then tried upon the plea of not guilty The jury found
him guilty, and ascertained his term of imprison
ment in the Penitentiary two years and sentence
was pronounced accordingly.
On The trial OF the indictment, the pcttioacr
TO sundry opinions OF the Court given against him iii,
rst bill OF exceptions states that he moved the Court 10
instruct the jury that TO maintain the prosecution the
commonwealth must prove 10 their satisfaction that he
the prisoner kneic at the time when the aedged steal
ing was committed, that the person named in the in
dctment' as the person stolen, free at that time
which instruction the Court refused TO give and instruct
ed the jury that IL they satisfied that the mulatt,
boy was free at the time he stolen and that fle pr
soner took and carried him away with the felonios dc
sign OF selling him slave, that the prisoner ou.b
be convicted whether he knew that he was then
| free. ~ "
The second bill Of exceptions states that the nrsoner
moved the Court TO instruct the jury that TO constitute IN,
feonous taking and carrying away charged in the t.
dIctmenthey must be satisfied that such taking and
ing away was against the of the mid David "a
sarwhich instruction the refused 10 eive
ing that the said David Caesar not more than
years Of age at the time the offence alledged in the in
dictment was committed.
The 81 bill OF exreption, states that after IN. fo
going instruction had been given and in tho course n
me argument before the Jury, Of the counsel fl,
the accused attempted TO the of the
instruction when he was stopped by the court md In
formed mat the court Would not permit the aueso
aw embraced in the said instruction. 10 be argued mr.
contFovered by the COUNSEL the instruction having he
gwen on motion of the prisoners counsel TO give the
contrary instruction.
Upon the petition or writ Of error tbe case IVA,
gued by Messrs. r. q. Sroit, Michie and 8 G Scot,
for the petitioner; and by the Attorney General for The
Commonwealth "
The argument upon 'fr demurrer 10 The indictment
turned Upon the construction Of the statute on which
the Indictment was founded. That act il contained in
426 sec % II Urged by the petitioner. con.
sci that the statute did not intend 10 declare fe
him Tor slave IL essential ingredient Of the off
ana such bring the intention, effect should be given IN
10y constituting The words stealing selling AZ if thew
were dealing aud selling la support Of this construc-