Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-11-26
LJVTERESTI.vG DECISIONS.

To EDroRs EsouiRER -
With this Note will Sketch Decisions dur
Ing late Term the They given a. fully
could well DO consistently nature of
report The Importance made this
advisable Ia the forgery especially that Spencer
piss have boon settled which deserve particular notice of
Pfofesons gentlemen question of interest alt
decided in Harrison Erson. That puts consus
ton upon the nsovent law which believed be entirely
but is construction which should bo Leg stature
Ia order that they nposo by statutory Amendment they
should deem il expedont
due the Judges opinions are
length in this Sketch. To make is
ms much US has been attempted in any case. q. X.
GENERAL COURT
DECISIONS AT NOVEMBER TERM-lS3O
Present-Judges Stuart peterborough Johnston,
Smith, 4iien Daniel, Semple. Parker Lpshur, Field
May and LoBidr.
Daniel Thomas, } Petition for writ of error 70
Judgment OF Superior Court of
The Commonwealth Haapshire. Np''''' 0'''' Oh
The petitioner indicted of felony under the act in
r. c., page 42S CHI. ILL., 80. The first count of the
indictment charged the petitioner with carrying slaves
named Henry, Sandy, Pol and Hyatt, the property of
Ephrdim Dunn, and one other slave named George
the property of Le,ris Dunn, out of the county of
Hampshire, and out OF this Commonwealth, into the
State OF HHyand without the OF the said own
ers, and with Intention to njure and deprive the said
owners respectively of their said slaves. The petitioner
upon being set to the bar moved the quash the
Indictment His motion overruled; and he except
ed TO the opinion rhe bill of exceptions set forth the
record OF the examining Court and stated the ground OF
tho motion to be, that the examination not for the
offence, that was charged in the Indictment Upon
a comparison Of the record Of the examining court
with the first count of tho Indictment it appeared that
OF the slaves called Hlniet in the record and
Jfya in the first count OF the indictment. To the bin
of exceptions, there added by the Judge, state
ment Of facts which related chiefly the title OF the
slaves but among other things it said that the
name OF Hyat was by mistake inserted in the indic
men instead Of Harret, and that upon the trial which
Afterwards took place. tho instructed the jury that
az to that slave ii was not competent for them to find the
prisoner guilty
There another bill of exceptions filed to an
opinion given at the trial The prisoner moved the
to instruct the jury that elf they believed from the evil
dencc that the prisoner carried the slaves out Of the
Common wealth with the intention OF getting reward
and not with the intention ofdeprivn the owners the re-
of Of said slaves, they must find the prisoner not gull
ty The court gave the instruction. but added there
to these words: unless they should also believe from
the testimony, that the prisoner did carry them OF
the Commonwealth, with the intention of depriving the
of their said slaves until he should receive
reward for their apprehension" And the exception
was taken TO this addition 10 the instruction.
The jury found the prisoner guilty upon the first
count OF the Indictment They assessed fine upon him.
and fixed his term of imprisonment in the Peni,eniary
TO be three years. Judgment was pronounced accord
ingy and TO that judgment writ of asked
November l6--Stsart ]. reported the unanimous
opinion OF the court, that the petition for writ of error
be rejected.
'JuIses Dasiel aui not sitting.
Erast,s Pouison, } Adjourned case from the
VS.. : superior Court of .4ccO
The Justices of .4ccomack mack.
On tho moon of PouLsOn, a rule was made in Octo-
ber 1925 by the Superior Court upon the Justices of tho
county court oil HccOWdch to shew cause why writ Of
mandrn,us should not issue, command them to res
tore Podson to his rights and privileges justice OF
the comfy court OF Acc0adck which rights and priy-
icgcs were withheld from him. The justices made
turn TO this rule; and there issue in fact Joined
between the parties On the trial of this issue the ju-
ry found tho following facts: that Pouison left the com
monwcalth about October 1920, with intent to take
up his permanent residence else where that he re-
manned about nine months in the State Of Rentucky
but did not establish any residence of permanent cha
racer there elsewhere until his return TO accOnck
county about July August 1921, where he has resid
ed ever since. Thercupoa, the Superior Court of ne
eonuck aiohrned to the General Court sunlry ques
tons AMI among them, the following; whether man
d1S ought 10 issue under the circumstances found y
the,verdict of the jury'
The question was argued in writing by Thomas IT.
Bailey as counsel for PomiSOn.
NooeDiber i7-UpshWJ delivered the opinion Of
the court 10 the following effect: tia there was no d-
ference in principle between this case and the case of
Ctco VS.. The Justices NJ Spoifsyip1fig In Va Cas-
20S upon the authority Of that the court were
unanimously Of opinion, tina, the mrndamus ought not
20 issue.