Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-07-13

ths said Mil, and dd take toll for grinding the
grain, against the Statute Issue Joined uron tho
Plea Of not guilty; and the jury found the defendant,
guilty. lie moved for Trial, which overruled,
and judgment red Tor iiue ct Gye dollars aud the
costs.
bill Of exception, the opinion Of the court state.
that, the trial, Il owed that thu defendant, lid
gind at his mill grain, for toll az stated in the iufor
nation. IL also proved. that those under whom
the defendant claims, erected mil, aud dam at the
same place, than thirty Yeas before the present.
msnt was made, and used tie same water gris,
mill grinding for toll until the defendant hecsrnc owner
thereof and that the defendant used IL in like manner.
But we. fully proved h,t the said Old mill om decay
OF the hmbers about The pier-head, and giving way OF
the dam at it, foundation to the piorhead early
the year 1870 became wholly unfit for public use;
that by means of puncheons dtiven down, and clay
thrown against them, the dam would hold for short
periods alter heavy rains, during which times the de-
PENDANT ha his own grain ground, aud az such times
would and did grind some grain for iew OF his neac
neighbours, who, from observation Of the weather or
Information received, could hit The right tms and fer
sueh grinding he took toll. These terms of grind
Ing were more requentn The winter and lasted longer
hut at no season could grind with any regularity and
for several yeas the miller not kept at the MILL but
engaged about the plAnation, though generally within
hearing OF a horn. The 4h July, 1918, the dam wa.
broke and the old mi-house swept off by fresh. In
the TALL Of the same year. the defendant commenced
getting timber FOR tho mill house. In 1919, these tim.
bers were framed. In the spring and summer Of 1920
the foundation Of the house was dug out the mill
cut; and by ChrstIats the whole work nearly
completed In 1871 the mill, much improved, com
menced grinding regularly for toll.
In the record, exhibiting this state of facts, the
following errors were assigned: "That in the ist
count in the norma ion offence is laid; and that the
second not sustained by the facts proved before the
jury"
The argued by johnson for the plaintiff in or
rorand by the attorney General for the Commonwe h.
chiefly upon the question whether the mill lhis
was built Gffer The first day IF January 1920. within
the mesnicg of the act ia . II. c. D. 22S See TO-
June 20. s. nlpie j. delivered the unanimous cpin.
ion of the court; which TO the following effect
that no offence is laid in the first count in the inoiua
tons and the second Is Sustained by the fscts
proved for they 40 not that TeJ5 built his mill
since the let January, 1920, but that he rebuilt an
old previously, eristng mill For these reasons,
new trial would have been awarded, il the Superior
had been authorized 10 proceed by way iniomo
uon But the court was Of opinion tina under the 65,h
.cc.ion Of the act 10 Il C GIL. as the nenalty In
this does not exceed twenty dollars, infofmaoh
ought TO have been bed upo s presentm-Lt, hut the
court should in summary way have heard and deter
mined the matter OF The presentmen in the form in which
1t was made; and in this case, the presentment
defective that no judgment could have been given
against tho plaintiff thereupon.
The judgment wac, therefore. revers~'; the pro
Feeding subsequent 10 the presentment aside; and
the presentment quashed.
20 '''''"' (Wrt OF error TO Judgment OF the
The C3,n,n a,cea,n. Superior Court Of Logan
Ths pr aer was Indicted OF larceny The Jury
found that he was Cuilty tina. the larceny was corn
nied on the 18th day OF August 1929 and that thr |
property was OF the value OF 80 75ct; and If these
iacs amounted TO grand larceny, they asceraned Lis
term OF imprisonment in the peritsntiAry 10 he two
years. Upon thi4 verdict the Superior Court decided
that The Act OF 1924 respecting grant larceny did not
render difpunishabs LARGE mics committed under the
operation Of the former law. Thereupon the attorney
for the cOmmonw wealth, with the lsave Of the court
waived and RENTED one year of the mptisonmo fix.
ed upon by the jury; aud the court pronounced iudS |
nent that the prisoner undergo imprisonment for tho
sidue OF the fine.
bill Of exceptions was made part Of the record,
which stated that alter the jury sworn, add after
the clerk had read the indictment, he proceeded 10
charge them, among other things 10 this effect that If
they found the goods stolen he OF the value of ten
UPWARDS. -
term Of imprisonment such term be not less than
ftco nor more Than three year, il they found them 10
be oil less value than ten dollars, they then 10
certain ne tins they were stolen and the value there
OF ThiE charge was corrected by the court by direct
ing me jury ~ they found the prisoner guilty Of The
stealing, then to dni srocii cay, the fine Of i;s
mission the value of the property, acd the imprson
ment But tine jury wac not apprised or charged that
under the law in force the time when this offence
was comni'ted, his imprisonment might be for less
period than'twn years When the storuey for the
monweslth, offered to waive years imprisonment,
the prisoner objected. ard moved fer a trial; but the
court overruled The motion.
a written argument was filed by Charles r. Bald
tcn counsel for the petitioner; and the AL
30 argued by Johnson his behalf and by the 4t0r
neg General for the common wealth.
June &c. Field j. delivered the opinion Of the court
in opinion with the circuit court shat "a to The
offence committed by The ptson4r, the act OF March
h, 1919, defining grand larceny, and prescribing thu
punishment therefor, was not repealed by the act Of
March H. 1924; but deciding that in consequence OF the
charge given by The clerk the OF npsnnment
the verdict ought to have been aside and new trial
eWdufd' IL 'c jury n1d b'eN correctly informed, |
Che court sad) they might have fixed upon one year
only. And the error in charging the jury, no,
cured by what was done by the attorney for the
nonweslth. The power of repreve AMI pafdon
was not in his hauds. His waving and renting one
year OF the time was void act; and the verdict
manrd entire
The Judgment was. therefore. reversed; AMI ths
cause sent back for new trial to be had.
Fy"' ( Adjourned case from the Superior Court Of
uoyicr. sasser.
writ OF cnpias od respondenduu was sued out Of
The deiend' NJ did not rive ba Is but under the in
2 II G. r. 5S5. HppeHdir confessed judgment in The
clerks Office. The Judgment was entered Of record
ard execution Issued ihsrsupon A. the succeeding
term, the cleIk sHggesed The court that the proceed
ngs in Che Office Subsequent 10 the execution of the
wri',wsre and ak The the same
aside. 1hi' motion continued TO the next term and
then cams on 10 be heard by consent OF the plaintiff aud
iie oie-K. After he @~amipa,ion Of evidence. the
court Of opinion that the iuJsment WAS not con
avail bimsel OF the privilege given to insolyent debt
ceediog 10 correct the ceedings in the Office ordered
quashed. To this opinion hill of exc. pons wa, filed
by The pianha, setting forth all the evidence adduced
on the application.
On the motion OF The plaintiff. The Superior Court A.
wafded supcysededs To the order OF the County Court
Aud when the SuperscdeGs 10 he heard the Su
perior Court Adjourned to the General Court sundry
questions for is decision.
The questions adj ned very fully argued by |
,ISxF ~ a..