Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-23

the funds OF the Society. A claim is made ON the |,
part OF the commonwealth against the suretics in
the bonds Of 1928 and 1927 for the respe Give
ly received in those years; and those sureties con-
test their liability upon the ground that the misap-
plcation OF the funds OF the Society is not covered
by the official bonds Of the Treasurer No cision
was given as to the liability Of the sureies for this
money. witness summoned for the Common
wealth was absent; and IL as agreed by the coun-
sci ON both sides, that to this question the cases
should remain undetermined till the next term
The following decisions were given during the
terms upon adjourned cases and writs OF error:
Garland II. Mitchell, pltf. , Adjourned case from
vs.. the Superior Court of
The Commonw ealth. tHenrico.
| The court decided that Tobacco of the growth
Of this state and in the condition in which il is
ordinarily prepared for the market by the grower,
IS NOT goods, wares or merchandise within the
meaning OF the act OF the Path February 1923,
which imposed penalty for selling without IL
cense goods, wares or merchandise OF foreign
domestic growth or manufacture; and, therefore,
that one selling tobacco on commission was under
no necessity to take out a license for SO doing
The Commonwealth, adjourned case from
|. vs. the Superior Court of
Henry ID. Pegram, def. Heurico.
In July 1925, presentment was made against
the defendant Tor exhibiting faro bank table; and
the process not being executed on him, the case
remained pending till March, 1929, when the de-
iendant appeared and moved the court TO direct the
Attorney Tor the Commonwealth TO enter diemis-
sion OF the the ground that the 4th section
OF the act entitled can act to alter and amend the
laws against the keepers and exhibitors OF certain
unlowiul games passed the 26th February, 1928,
repealed the 18th section of the act en- titled san
TO reduce into one, the several acts and parts OF
acts to prevent unlawful gaming" passed 18Th Jar.
| 1919, as to all offences committed prior to the
FIRST day Of May 1923, when the first mentioned
act commenced in force. The question arising upon
this motion was adjourned 10 the General Court
| for its decision.
| The act of February 26th, 1925, having enacted
punishment for the offence of exhibiting faro diff.
terent from the punishment before prescribed, was
from the time ii went into effect an implied repeal
of the pre-existng law as to all new offences; but
by the terms OF the act OF February Goth, 1925 the
new punishment is only applicable to offences
happening after 1t took effect. Its terms are, "any
person or persons ,cho shall hereafter be guilty"
| Not embracing offences committed before it took
effect as to all such offences il leaves the previous
punishment to be applied.
| Upon this ground, the General Court decided
that the 4th section Of the said act passed the 26h
of February 1928, did not repeal the 18th section
of the said act passed the 18th of January. 1919
nor the act passed the 2lst of February 1923, en-
titled San act farther 10 amend the penal laws of
| this commonwealth" as to oGeuces committed a.
gainst the aforesaid seventeenth section prior to
the FIRST day Of May 1925.
Thomas Jones, pitt } Adjourned case
W.. from the Sup'or
The Justices Of Stafford, defts Court Of Stafford
The plaintiff applied TO the county court OF Stat
were had in the case and when il was finally
heard, the county courtdecided that the road ought
not to be opened; an appeal was taken TO the Su-
perior Court; but that court dismissed il on the
ground that II ought not to have been allowed. AZ
| forwards on the motion OF the plif. conditional
r,dnddmuS was awarded by the Superior Court 10
| the Justices OF Stafford commanding them 10 es-
| tablish the road prayed for by him, or shew good
cause TO the contrary; and when this writ was re-
turned, executed on the Justices, the neither an
fho 3r
| mus, the plaintiff moved for peremptory mando.
mus. The questions arising upon this motion were
| adjourned to the General Court.
The General Court was of opinion that even
though the judgment Of the county court were err
roneous, II afforded no ground for the proceeding by
rnandd,us, since in this case, there was different
remedy open to any party aggrieved. If the plain
till was aggrieved he might have appealed from
the Judgment OF the county court. On such appeal
ifreguarly taken and prosecuted, full Justice might
have been attained. The circumstance that the
Superior Court dismissed the appeal was Of no i'm
portance II it was improperly dismissed, the
plaintiff might still have appealed to another tri.
bunal
The court, therefore, certified to the Superior
Court Of Stafford, that the nandamus moved for
ought to be refused.
Richard Rawlns,pltf } Petition for writ of error to
l. vs. : a Judgment of the Suner;or
The Commonwealth. Court of Orange. ~
The petitioner was indicted for an assault; and
on the trial oil the Indictment he "ofered to prove
IN mitigation OF damages, that the informer who
had been assaulted, had been on bad terms with
him, and on previous days TO the time of making the
assault, and at other places, had used provoking
and abusive language OF, and to the petitioner -
This evidence, the court refused to allow TO go TO
the jury; and an exception was taken to the opn-
ION. verdict and Judgment were rendered against
the petitioner; and in his petition, he assigned as
error, the opinion of the court rejecting the ey.
| dence offered by him.
/ The Genl Court considering, that il evidence had
been given OF the "bad terms" existing between
the prosecutor and the petitioner 1T could have had
no other effect than render il probable that the
| assault had been made through revenge.ui feel.
| ings, was, therefore, OF opinion that the excIu-
sion oil evidence OF that kind, furnished no ground
lot the writ OF error The only question was, as
| to the provoking and abusive language used on
previous days. As TO this point, the cour. was OF
| opinion, that immediate provocatons ony or such
as are plainly part OF the res gestu received so
recently, that the blood has not had time TO cool,
| could properly be received in evidence for the
purpose stated in the bill of exceptions; and tina,
the Superior Court Of Orange, did right in reject
ing such evidence was offered by the petitioner;
he, not having shewn on the record, the relevan-
cy OF that evidence 10 the issue joined. The pc
ttion for the writ Of error was therefore rejected
Samuel Walker, plh Writ Of error to judgment
The Commonwealth. Henrico.
! The petitioner was indicted Of larceny i'm steal
ing watch OF the value Of $50, and chain, key
anu geo. Va "'o 'aiue vi SIi, the properly of Eli
zabeth Bolton. On the trial of the Indictment the
commonwealth, after adducing testimony to she ~
that the watch had been taken from the house Of
the owner, and was found In the possession Of the
prisoner, introduced witness who proved tina, he
went in pursuit OF the prisoner to Norfolk; that on
bis arrival there, while on board the ste aInboat
the prisoner entered the cabn that the prisoner
accosted the witness in familiar terms, and the wit
ness informed him that he bad come TO get the
watch, the cloak and Mr.. Thomas bill and thai
an alteration ensued, in which the prisoner de-