Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-02

commonly called public defaultsr. The o6es-
tion Tor the Court, then. was, whether the RiIue-
sous cIass OF cases. coming under this description
COOS constitute an offence sognizable by the com
mon law Of the land On the par, Of his elect,
anu OF public justice, he maintained that this WAS
not case Sor the common Law; that il was no. co
I'D principle, nor was 1t in authority. A.
MT ). here went into analysis Of thetusi,c
odences, to shew that en,be mt Of public INC
ney, unless made crime by statutory law, Yas
not the subject Of criminal jujic allure, unlekses
iected by means tending 10 work a general public
evil that is, by such means az forgery counterfeit
ing Of seals, using fahe wcights, &c. SC. and re-
terred to many authorities 10 shew such 20 have
been the uniform OF decisions in the English
Court, &c. The offence charged in the in.ic msnts
ne SAID was The obtaining Of certain OF money,
amounting altogether from 3 500 to 1900 dollars
and, IL proved To the full exten being eccoynDa-
MED by no falsihcation surreptticus use Of any
oil those tokens badges which invite Iabiic cor.
hdence, did not constitute an OIancc at corimon
law.
Having argued at large the genera, question III
the law as applicable to the case, Mr.. j. proceed
ed TO look into the indictments, which he treated
with very little ceremony as to their contents.
,nough with periect decerum as to their authors.
we nave not room to give even synopsis Of his
argument on this, any more than on the frs:
ground he occupied.
He said that, in the FIRST place, the insctnensi
ne held IN his hand (and both were yearly in the
same forn) contained no definite or intellipih,e
charge Of ialse pretences at all. TWAS true that
II heaPed up number Of defamatory words; nut.
in the language of Lord Holt, 10 which he r.f.r
red more than once, il requires soIuething NOR,
than deianalory epthets TO constitute crime l..
was NOT sufncIent to impuse that man has rou.
united crime, but the indictment ;nu.t .hey i,
NOW he coDteuded, when the allegations in these
indictments were compared with one another, j.
would De seen that they were repugnant to esci.
o'her' self c0Etradicted sul their own face
and rom beginning TO end did not comprise QUO
single inieilgble charge. Ifwas alleged, for ey
ample, IN one part OF the Indictment that r. ".
DID jdisety and fraudulen,ly write certain letter
&c. aud in the next clause OF the iudictme,it
u was Claimed that every part of this LETTER vss
true, nc and so on through tile whole. Al.
ter hn'sliing his analysis Of the indictments. Mir
- salu ne would not cite any authorities 20 the
'aus ne had suggested in the indictments, o.;
cause they were sufficiently obv;ous--not srisii.e
he said, iromany defect OF skill 10 the gentleneI,
VINO mad drawn them up, but from the want 81;
naterials--froin the ooseness OF the prescptments
which Afforded no better ground for ihe,u to 6u4
upon.
Mr.. J. quoted kord ERcnborouch and other 80.
thos'ties to fortify his general POSITIONS ana coz
Guided by saying that on these grounds he. cont.
eehuy expected, might it please the Court to.s,,s
fam the demurrer to these indictments
Mr: Swami, Attorney for the Emitted State,
heNt mad the iioor: but, the hour Of adjournment
having arrived, the Court minated an iuielticr.
TO adjourn. "
MIR. Coke, for the accused, gave notice IN
auaiton 10 notice OF authorities which he Shout,
refer TO in his argument, that he should take an
additional exception to the Indictment. This E,c-
ing prosecution at common law, tor an offence.
against the United States in their federa,ive css
rscter, his position would be- that there can moi W.
such an offence as one against tie United ,stste,
under The Common law, that t..ere is M friti,,s
Common haw Of the United States
'Aad tnen Tho Court adjousned E,lat. Ias.