Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1829-06-29
LEGAL.
From the Richmond Enquirer Of June -.
rs ofMe General Court al June I.rnt.

| From the Richmond Enquirer Of June b.
Deeisions ofthe General Court al juno 1trnt,
1929.
This Court adjourned on Saturday last. On
the day before the adjournment, disposition
was made of the cases against the sufe,ies OF
Jerman Baker, late Treasurer oil the Common.
wealth. Judgment WINS given sgainsl the sure
ties in the bond OF 1924 for $3.50, against
the suretics ~ the bond OF 1928 for 80 6i4
ca cts. eainsi the sureiies in the bond OF 1926
for go 223 % cts. against the sureiies IN the
bond Of 1927 for 80, $50 80 cts. and against the
snfeiies in the bond Of 1928 for S3,60i 80 cts.
making IN The whole the sum OF y25. ll3 80
| cents This was the whole amount ascertain
ed 10 be due from the late Treasurer, with The
except on Of certain funds received by him OF
the Cincinnati Society.
On sccoun, Of the Cinoinnatli Society there
is due the sum Of S5.043 20 cts oil which S.,
| 77S 10 cts was received IN the year 1925. and
80 226 90 cents ia 1927. This money was re.
celved under an acts of assembly passed Feb
ruury 9th. 1914, authorislng the Treasurer 10
receive into the public treasury the funds OF
The Society. claim is made on the part OF
the commonwealth against The sureiies IN the
bonds Of 1925 aud 1877 for the sums respect.
lively received in those years; and those sure.
| ties contest their liability upon the ground that
the msappllcatIon ofthe funds of the Society
| IL not covered by the official bonds Of the
| Treasurer. No decision WIS given rs TO the lin
bity of tho suretles foi this money. A wit.
pess summoned for the Commonwealth was
| absent AID il was agreed by the counsel on
| both side3 that as to thi. question the cases
should remain undetermined ill the next term
The following decisions we're given during
the terms upsn adjourned ca.es and wriis OF
| error:
Garland II Mitchell, pit } Adjourned case from
vs.. 1.-The Superior Court
The Commonwealth. 1of Henrico.
The court decided that Tobacco of the
growth of this state and in the condition W.
which II is ordinarily prepared Tor the market
by the grower, is mol goods, wares or mer.
chandizc within the meaning of the act OF
the 9th February 1929, which imposed
a penalty for selling without license goods,
wsres or merchendize OF foreign or domestic
growth or manufacture /; and. therefore, that
one selling tobacco on commis ion was uader
no necessity to take out license for so ding.
Tho Commonwealth, } Adjourned case from
vs.. }ihe Superior Court
Henry D. Pegram, def )of Henrico.
In July 1920. a presentment was made a.
ga'nsi the defendant for ex' biting a faro bank
table !; and the process not being executed II
him, the case remained pending ill March,
1899, when the defendant appeared and NOV
ed he court 10 direct the Attorney for the Com
monweath TO enter a dismission of the ca Sc, on
the ground that the 4ih section of the act emit
tied an act TO alter and amend the laws a.
galnst the keepers aud exhibitors Of certain
unlawful games pas sed the Goth February,
1923, repealed the l7lh section of the act
entitled an act TO reduce into one, the seye.
raj acts and parts of acts to prevent IN awful
Uam mi gnI al
fences committed prior 10 he first day oFhav,
1928 when the first mentioned act commen.
ced in force. The question arising upon
this motion was adjourned TO the General Court
for lis decision.
The act oil February 26lb, 1923, having en-
acted a punishment Tor the offence of exhibit.
ing faro different from the punishment before
prescribed. was from the time il went INTO
effect an implied repeal of the pre- existing
law rs TO all new offences but by the terms
OF the net Of February Goth, 1928, the new
punishment is only applicable TO Offences hap
pening after it took effect. It's terms are.
" any person or persons toho shall hereafter be
gully MOI embracing offences committed
before 1t took effect as to all such offences il
leaves the previous punishment to lie applied.
Upon this ground. the General Court decid.
ed TINT the 4ih section Of said act passed the
9th of Feb. 1929 did not repeal the 18th sec.
ton of the said act passed the 18th OF Janu-
airy, 1911, nor he act passed the Dist of Feb
1923, entitled an act farther TO amend the
penal laws OF this commonwealth" as 10 of
fences committed against the aforesaid seven.
leenth section prior 10 The first day of May,
1928.
Thomas Jones, pit. } Adjourned case
VS.. , from the sun or
The Justices OF Stafford, defs cour, of S, afrlrd
The plaintiff applied 10 the county court OF
Stafford TO have road opened ; various pro
ceedings were had in The case and when il !
was hnally heard, the county court decided
that the ROAD ought not TO be opened an up.
peal was taken to the Superior Court but that
court dsni sei II on the ground that ii ought
MOI 10 have been allowed. Afterwards on the
motion of the phf. conditional ma,ldamus vas
awarded by The Superior Court 10 the Justices
oil Stafford, commanding them to establish the
road prayed for by him, or shew good cause 10
the contrary and when this writ was returned,
executed on the Justices they neither appear
ing nor making any return upon the mdnddnns
the plaintiff moved for peremptory manda-
mus. The questions arising upon the motion
were adjourned to the General Court
The General Court was of opinion that, even
though the judgment of the County Court we're
erroneous, u afforded no ground for the pro.
ceeemg by mdnddmas, since, IN this case, there
was different remedy opened to any party ag.
grieved. II the plaintiff was aggrieved he
might have appealed from the judgment of the
County Court. On such appeal, il regularly
taken and prosecuted, full Justice might have
been attained. The circumstance thar the Su
perIor Court dismissed the appeal, was OF no
importance. FIT was improperly dismissed.
the plaintiff might still have appealed to ano.
ther tribunal.
The Court, therefore. certified to the Snpe.
rior Court of stafford that the mapdan.us mo
we'd for ought to be refused.
Rich'd. Rawlns, Pltf. Petition for writ of err
vs. rsr to a judgment of the
The Commonwealth. Superior Court of Or
age.
The petitioner wa indicted for an assault
and On the trial OF the Indictment, he " offered
to prove in mitigation of damages that the in
former who had been assaulted, had been on
bad terms with him, and on previous DAYS to
the time of ma king the assault and nj o,har