Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-07-13
FOR TIE ENQUIRER.
GENERAL. COURT
Decisions at J,me Term, 1880.


The Commonwealth ) aHdoah
The petitioner indicted of felony in stealing bank
notes OF the Farmers Bank of rirgiiiG, of the value
OF thirty dollars, the property of one ItliG Lanch
inc jury found him guilty, and fixed his term of impri.
so"ment in the pcneDtaIy; Judgment rendered
agsinst him according TO the verlic and at This term
application was made for writ of the Judgment,
upon the ground that the judge of the Circuit Court
erred in the opinions which he gave at the trial.
The bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
nm C. Lanch witness for the Commonwealth tes-
tilted that he locked up in his store house. four bank
notes on the Farmers Bank, amounting to $50. The
next morning when he returned to the store, he missed
the notes. and believing that they had been stolen in the
course oil the night, he directed boy named Peter
anch, who WIS assistant in the store search for
them. Peter Ldich did search for them; but before
they were found the witness left home. He returned
home in the evening of the day. and was Informed
that Peter Ldch had found some bank notes and silver
in pair OF pantaoons of the prisoners concealed in
the hay in stable and that the prisoner had been arrest
ed on the charge of stealing them. After dark i'm the
same evening the prisoner taken before maqis.
ate the witness present and the prisoner confess
ed before the magistrate, that he had taken the money
from the store house of the witness. At the time
OF making this confession, threats made against
nor promises induce the prisoner to make the COMES
sion The witness further stated, that the prisoner was
In his employment when the money stolen.
When the witness was before the magistrate he was
called upon TO describe his notes. Witness said he re-
mcmbercd that there two ten dollar notes and two
five dollar on the Farmers ban. hut said he co,
not describe them particularly Notes were then
produced answering the above description, and were
delivered by the justice 10 the witness. Witness tcsti
cu mat ne could not swear 10 the identity of
but he believed them TO be his and he also Je cred then,
TO be genuine notes the Farmers Bank The notes
cere not produced upon the trial in the Superior Court
nor did it appear that they had been lost or DESTROYED
Witness said that he had passed them Off and did NOT
know where they were.
Another witness for the commonwealth Peter Lanch,
testified that in the of the morning. after receiv
ing directions from I'm. c. Lanch as before mention
ed ne found pair OF pantaoops concealed in the hav in
me stable OF said Nm c. Ldch in which the prisoner
attended The pantaloons belonged 10 the prisoner In
the pocket, witness found the four bank notes which
were exhibited before the Justice and delivered TO I'm
| G. LDnch, and also silver coin.
The prisoner then introduced witness Jonas ME-
shire, who testified that after Peter Lonch found the
pantaoons and money he apprehendd the prisoner and
charged him with having stolen the money He deni.
ed it, Heshire said TO him. you had as well confess
Tor At toH DC cSTSe for you If you don't or ords TO
hat effect TIE prisoner denied that he had stolen it,
HeShire then confined him in room and in about t,uo
h''"s thereafter went TO him, and showed him the mo-
ncY and notes which had been found and said 10 him
GLOW much silver did you gct" The prisoner answer
cd, sit all together" qleshire GLOW did vo,
get in the store Prisoner s'The door was mot loci,
ed went in and got the money! or words to that eff
tervew. ~ "
Upon this testimony, the prisoner moved the court to
eNcuue from me nry az evidence the confession of the
prisoner, which I'm. @. Ldnch proved to have been
made before the magistrate; which motion The court
overruled ''' e0'''
The prisoner :hen moved the court to insruc, Tho l.,
ry that as the bank notes in the indictment mentioned
were not produced upon the trial nor shexn 10 havs
been lost or destroyed and it not shewn that the
ny any act OF ms, mad prevented their being
Produced the jury could not under such circumstance
convict the prisoner and the refused to give the
instruction wy
No counsel appeared in the General Court for the nc
uloner; hut the argued in writing by PbiIjD
pefHdmS, Jr. on his behalf. He contendal on the
lst Point That the confession made nv The nrsonor
70 The witness .Uesiire, induced by a previoua
threat and PROMISE and could not be received az evil
dence; that il the first confession inadissble on
inns ground all subsequent admissions should be reject
ed, for the motive which led the first mbt
nave continued to operate afterwards; it ought to be
supposed mat dd so operate unless caution or
warning had been given the prisoner in the inter-
val between the first and second confession On Tho
md Point He insisted that the ought to be pro-
duced; LIST 10 ascertain the identity: and 2nd IN oscer,i
whether they were genuine. II they were not genu
inc, they were of M oaiue, and no offence was commit
ted 10 prove the value, the themselves should
be produced and then il would be ascertaned whether
they were genuine or counterfeit. No evidence of va
ue, in exclusion of the themselves should no c
ceyed unless the production of the was rendered
impossible by the act of the prisoner himself or bv ac
cident or unless they had been passed away bv him ne
genuine.
June Dist. Peterborough ] delivered the opinion
oil the court They said that the first confession did
not appear TO have been cxtorted from the prisoner nv
the threat of .feSTe. that time he persisted in de-
nying his guilt Ii was not until after the expiration of
Hoo h0"S that he made any confession; and then the
confession seems to have been produced by the sqbt of
the notes and money in the hands of third person.
The court justified in believing that the FIST conC,s
sion was coi,udryand fortor Che sec9nd which was
not made ill the lapse of So ne further time
Upon The second point the court said that the pro-
VI noteS was NOT indispensable 10
their value. The non-production of them might weak
EN- the proof and put hazard the conviction of the ac
cuSed; but yet, the commonwealth was not TO be inbi
bited from resoTting TO other evidence The evidence
adduccd in this Ohough not so complete as il ngbt
have BEEN the notes had been prouced) wa, vet per
ecty competent and legal.
Inc petition for writ Of was unanimously re.
jected.
A''J u'm re- Adjourned case from the superior
piston. Court of .Hason.
Pastor obtained Judgment before iuaiice Of a.,
peace, for small debt Hoy's adurx appealed TO ia
county court, where the judgment affirmed with
damages and costs And then a motion was made TO the
superior Court for writ of ceriorGri, to remove into
That court the record of the judgment of the county
court which Cncluding interest. damages and costs) did
not amount 10 $780, BOr even 10 ss33 3Scts
Upon this application the Superior Court adjourned TO
the General Court the following questions:
lst Can decision OF County Court, affirming or |
reversing the judgment ia single justice be reviewed
in this court in any case?
2d. What judgment ought TO he given on tho applics
tom and if the writ be allowed, what FINAL decision on
to be pronounced on the whole record?
The case argued i'm writing by Henri J. Fisbcr !
on behalf Of the applicant lie contended that writ
OF ceTtiOrdi would lie at law be the amount
what il might; and hat statute had res riced fhe
writ TO any particular
June 22d MAY j. delivered the opinion Of the couri
that the 9th section Of the circuit court law q r. c. D.
23O) limits the jurisdiction Of these 10 matters
amounting 10 hundred dollars, "whetherbrourht |
before them by original process hd5eos corDus appeal
writ Of error, supersedcdS DlditIonus ccrfiJyqyj
IN proceedings for any purpose, or by any |
other legal ways or means whateycr that although |
there are some exceptions, TO the limit here pre-
scrbed there is one Of them which can comprebend