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

wh the 7th Of July, 1927 he received pardon. On
receiving his pardon he returned 20 the county OF Scott
and assumed anew the exerci.o Of his office OF justice
| tot the peace. rule was made against the defendant
sh-w eause why an inform alton in the nature OF .
quo carrGnto should not be fled against him for per-
forming and exercising without lawful authority the
Office OF Justice of the peace Upon the oil the
rule the facts herein stated agreed and the
Adjourned TO the General Court,
| The attorney General, for the Commonwealth. No
| counsel for defendant.
June 2s-Brockenbrough J delivered the unoni-
nous opinion Of the court, by which il was decided,
/ L. That the defendant by the conviction and judg-
msnt Of the felony aforesaid, did forfeit hs office OF jus.
\ tce Of the peace and become thereby legally inca
paeia,ed hon thereafter acting thereto under his
! said commission.
2 That the pardon did restore his capacity TO act
under his former commission, avoid the forfeiture.
Sd, That the Superior Cour, ought to mako the rule
against the defendant absolute.
! 'S (Adjourned case from The Supe-
Donnally s. Le,cis rior Court of Kand,cha.
The first count OF The plaintiffs declaration set forth
tina, the defendants by their promised pay
to the plaintiff certain for the hire OF III
gro men, and return them at Christmas next ensuing,
well clothed, AMI averred that OF the said negro
men (naming hm) not returned well clothed, at
Christmas next ensuing any time since. To the
.aid bret count the defendants filed four pleas The
USt alleged that before Christmas day the negro Con
account Of whom the action brought,) whou, the
negligence default OF the defendants, secretly and
clanaestuely runaway and absconded from the poses-
sion OF The defendants and made his into The Bri-
sh possessions into other countries unknown whence
the defendants before the said Christmas day were and
ever since have BEEN utterly unable 10 obtain or re-
him; and tho defendants that after the alb
scondinS and running away and before Christmas dav
they used oil due diligence and proper to appre
hend AMI recover the said negro. The second plea
alleged that the defendants being manufacturers of salt
at hdn0Uhd sdines, did hire the three negro men 10
be used and employed in he manufacture of salt and
ster The making OF the covenant and before Christina
day, the said negro (on account Of whom the ac
lion was broughD ab,conded and runaway from their
possession into parts unknown wi hout the default or
af -
seen or heard Of notwithstanding the defendants dill
use an due diligence and proper means after his alb
scohurg anu before Christmas day. 10 discover arpre-
mend an regain him. The third plea alleged that bo-
lore Christmas The ,ad negro man abscondcd and ran
OIL from the possession cf the defe ndants iato the
OF ono or other parts urG1own without the gigence
and default Of the deendsnis and the defendant aver
red thaimmeda'cly after his 20 Ascending and from
thence until and after Christina da they used du. dill.
gence TO fad, and rogain him, hui without feet
The fourth plea alleged n at before Christmas day tn
said negro man. without the negligence and default Of
the Defendants departed this life To these pleas the
plaintiff demurred and the Superior Court garirV the
points OF law ari sing upon the demurrers and d.
Hcult being Of opinion that qesons operating so
tensvely upon contracts for the hiring OF slaves ought
10 he considered in the General Court adjourned the
case to this court for its decision upon each plea ard
demurrer.
Leigh argued the for the plaintiff and johnson
for defendants.
Ji'ne &c. Brochen5rough J. reported the decision of
the plaintiff from maintaining his action to the first
coun; in the declarations: and therefore the demurrer
10 me ssld iour pleas should be overruled.
{Ahinurncd from the Superior Court Of
Fucker. { Rdnd,oha.
This case was adjourned 10 the General Court for |
its decision upon the defendants demurrer To the Sc
conl coant of the plaintiffs declaration. The count
special one in case, drawn bile length;
OF action that was set forth. II stated hat i'm an
action Of debt. wherein Beach plaintiff and Hog Q |
and Ballard were defendants, Rucfer as a
witness and deposed falsely upon material questions by
reasen whereof the Jury found verdict for the deen-
dan s. the Plaa thereby lost his debt and and
subj 20 costs. The demurrer to the count Of
cours', rsssd the question whee action could be
msin tanned for such cause therein set forth.
The question was argued in writing by Smith and
CTGk for the dcmurrGnt, and by Charles Il. BGli,Ot
in support OF the action
June 26. BrOcknbrough J. reported the decision Of
The court that tia second count INSULT Gent TO
maintain the action; aud that tho demurrer thereto
should be sustained.
During this term certain questions upon The suhiec
of administration were presented to the General Court |
which had been before it at former term wit: whe-
,her upon an application to after administration
had baen granted by another court pGrOI evidence
couli be received TO shew that under the facts of the
case the court which had previously granted the adj
1tTaton, acted without its jursdclion? and Ghe
Their upon its being shewn in this way that the previous
grant without Jun isdction, such previous grant
(wihou any repeal thereby should lie regarded void
and administration granted ANEW as though there had
been b ,foIel
estate of Robert Robinson to the Sheriff Of Middle.
seq. Administration had bfen previously granted
Sc0u ny the cOGt OF Hus.Irgs OF Richmond, ard
Scott had notice OF this motion, bat did appear in
court. EVidenre ad1uced Uhich proved TO The |
satsiactiCn of The court that Robinson died not thu
Commonwealth; aud that he had not at the time Of his
death any place Of residence therein; any lands or
other estae in the ci of Richmond Upon these facts
thus proved il argued by Johnson, Lei Sh and Sta
ndrd, that the administration grated by the Court OF
Hastings WAS merely vOid aud the court decided,
and committed the estate TO The Shelf Of lfiddieser:
where II was proved debtor OF the decedent lived
AZ his tetm BARKER aked for administration on The
estate OF MdThhd stating that administration had been
previously eraned by the county Of Henric0 10
Dual; and DituGl would acknowledge notice of this |
moiion. DuUG! came toto court accordingly AID ac-
knowledge notice, but neither consented objected
to the grant of administration TO Barker. Whrreupon
Barker proved by witness that the inestate resided in
CGJeH county AMI died there. Afer this proof tie |
court took time to consiJsr the question; and the de-
c'ion az to the administration upon ROJinSonS estate
was reviewed That decision confirmed. The |
court again deter mined that The grant Of admnis'ra-
ton by court without it's jurisdiction (as the
case hege) a nudity and presented obsts-
Gle grant of administration by this court As the
bofi.ies npOn which this opinion founed the court
erred to Taller 100 Bdckbor0ughvs W. Davis Sall.
80. p INNS. Is. Griffin VS. Frazier CiGnch l. |
also Coke 20
Ten judges were present; but Sempe and .fay dis
sented.
lDON1@ SV1Ge
(FrOra dc Detroit Journal Of Jans 93.)
IN-n N laflnr FINN L. at Gree