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

this Court; and at November tenn ;, we. Jcc,.s ~
me new trial ought not to he awarded Az ,h. en-.
80; I'm " 'ns superior Cour, ct Law, this deeis
% was Pro"uced, and the petitioner set 10 the bar
re then made another motion for anew trial upon
.ne evidence OF sundry witnesses examined in Conr,
Inc Conrt overrulcd the motion, and hill Of xca,,io
was he'd setting forth the tes,nony a, IN. y;,rossc.
VINO were so examined. The ohiec, Of the bin NJ xcs,
uons was l 20 sus'ain the around formerly taken thai
case was not one of anu der in the first degre I'm, in
e second degree ouiy. And secondly TO support 80 lar
areiaed to 3VFed Jingle the obi ,c,ons 10 hin and two
o'her Jnrors, which discovered after the vedct And
nere'oore made the ground of motion for new trial.
Bn' besdes the testimony adduced by the prisoner for
:ss purposes the bill of exception, aso contained the
e''uehce oil witnesses who were introduced by the
commonwealth, 10 prove the character aud creLbil-
~ Of HnSie.
After The motion for trial hal been overruled,
we prisoner moved that the judgment be arrested los
the following reasons.
lst. Because the paner purpor,ing TO be an indic,.
ment' does not state tcte ,1ha term il was found
and presented.
81. That the said paper ne,er b,s boan ,s.,,
81 ina, The Grand jury recorded to have been
sworn Tor The Computation of LynehLurg, and not for
INC Superior Court Of LynchJurg.
H. Because the does not state for ,,bnt Co,r
'n"ywere so mp,nnelled and sworn-nor does IL state
,n'' they were so impsnnelled and sworn for any
Court. 10y
9th Because there il no indic,men. yccorieJ tou,I
by G aud Jury Tor tho Corporation Of Iynchbnrr;
nor when, or at what term it found aid prcsen
ted r
9th. Because there is no inIic,m.n, -, c,cf f,uDI
ana presented by The Grand Jury for The Corporation OF
Lynchburg; and
7ih. Because there is error in the verdict in u,is.
e hni the prisoner guilty OF murder in the 'lst
degree, when their hning as TO the degree Of gull,
o"gn' TO nave been written a, full length
The motion in arrest Of Judgment wac ovetrrled.
ana tue superior Court prof. ouncej Judgment that the
prisoner be hanged; and tina, ex ,c1,ion OF tho n,l
"e EN- ! ne had on The siriee"M day of July merit.
10 this judgment OF death, JohnSon az counsel for
the prl'ol er, asked q VIII OF error.
June 23d -lfGy delivered the opinion of the
Ceurtto til. following effect
l.f A.. ~, l.
goethe Court has reconsiiered liz opinion upon this
pont, and examined the additional evidence ahducsd
we were OF opinion at the last term, that the facs APP
peaing on the record, fully established Wv Iru dsh
crate and premediraed killing There is nothing
IN ne ne'o testimony" TO change hi. OPINION
zd As to the objections 10 the three jurors discover.
Ell after the verdict. The Court at the last term
held that when juror having been sworn on his poir
are, declares that he had heard various reports of the
case ana IN conversation with Others ha! expressed
an opinion OF the probable result but had no bias or pre-
luhce which could prevent hi. giving the prisoner
Tar trial; and thereupon the prisoner without further
enquiry elects TO be tried by the Juror, an being az
terward' found guilty, the Court for a new trial
because OF opinions previously expressed by the Juror
such motion is addressed the sound di,creon ~
me Court; and il it be of opinion thu, the juror has ac.
Tea with Integrity and impartiay. and that the YER
dlct IL correct upon the merit new trial ouyht no,
70 De granted-The Court has deliberately review
ed this opinion aud has no disposition to disturb IN.
decision ia the limited erfen in ichich IL is here stated
ne neto euldeHce" which has been adduced applied
10 lie juror Jingle only; ana it teuds 10 exhbit his
N""' 'Ci character IN a more favourable
81 As 10 the errors assigned in arrest of Indictment
" i'a sufficient to the I,t 81 h 5rh and
9th Of these errors that appears by the record that
al July term 1929 of the Superior Court of ynchburg
me Grand Jury were duly sworn in the usual AMI Ie.
gal iorm IN that Court Grand Jury of nouss for
The bndv of the Corporation ofLynchbnrg and that hi,
Grand jury found the indictment against the prisoner
~ Is not necessary. that The Indictment should itself
shew at what ae il found aud il not necessary
'ha' II be recorded at full length in The order hook
rs 20 me 9'J con that the jury used the contraction
fha ynrb Grsy; 4.
Tue verdict wtich was recorded, an then ead in
open Court TO the Jury this word is properly written
anu recorded in letters so that whether the objection
would otherwise have been available or not there no
error in the verdict -
ted. ''J'e
5h deemed @ m report tho testimony
The Commonwealth
VS. Adjourned case from the Supe
Edmond Perrg'nan s. nor Court of King g. Ouer1,
kifiDdh PerryD,0n.
An Information flied, charging that E5,uond
FeFTymdn unawfully, willingly and ince siuou.lv did
'trh'rry VIM and take TO be his wife. 'Ritnrah Per-
'y"ian' NE widow and wife OF Joseph Pey7yman, dec
VINO "a' the brother of the said Edmond Ptrrvulon-
to which inform atom the defendants pleaded moi quiIv
Inc Jury found specially, that the defendant EJuon3
11n in'ermarry with the other defendant :. the said
hHurdh had been the 'cife and was al the TIM Of
'he said in,ermirriaRr, the cidoto of Joseph Perm
8 then deceased, and the Sd Joseph was the broibr
OF the said Edmond They submitted upon The 6c,s
"hcther The defendants we're guilty of a violation of
The marriage act, and assessed conditional ne
each 81 one cent. The Superior Court, at the in,t,ncs
o Inc defendanis, adjourned the case to the Gen.ts
Court. " w "'"e'a'
The question arising on the verdict s.nendsd ON tLa
meaning OF the prohibition, in the 18th sec ton Of the
marriage act; O. X C. 309) of brother marry "bis
o'oner DDe. The de oudant' cOntended that as The
brother is dead. the who wa. hi, wife il nm
longer ms tcDe but his tcid0,c and as this i, pen,I
law 1t should be construed strictly.
June I'll Brockenbrough J. delivered the yno,i
NOUS opinion Of the Court that the Superjor C,ur,
20 give judgment on the verdict rendered sgains,
'ne deeHtants and declare the nudity of the MARRIAGE
OF 10" said defendants, and them to give bond
win security, that they will cohabit hereafter
me 0''~D''"''edfh Adjourned casa from III. Sun,
Ffederick Cousins rior Court Petersburg
Aver b'iag convicted Of hor'e-stealing tho pi,oner
'n0Vfd 'or new trial, the ground ha, tho verdict
mould not nave been rendered the f,cts proved
Which were, that the horse taken feioniousy nv
tne prisoner, IN TIE county Of PihsUp1nid and altar
'erwafds III. prisoner brought the horse TO pefeysbye
and there feloronsy had possession Of him usfd bi
ana offered TO sell Linn Upon this state Of facts The
following questions wsro adjourned to the Gsnor,l
Court. by The superior Court Of Law IL. Has nh,
Couit jurisdiction TO Try the s!-aLd2I Ought
new trial t. he granted!
June 25..Nay delivered the opinion Of the c,ou,
That The superior Court hath jui,dicon of the on nee
and the motion for new trial ought 10 be oyerr,lsd
H",Ss'" (Adjournei case from the so-
Ransom ami Pugh. perior Court Of Wood
This wac a case Of ,oyf NJ r'qht The vyri, wa
'ssned ia September, 1926. In September 1927 The
dem'Se was joined; ard, at April term 1890 The ten.
anlF hled aidays and dspo'ions, going to 'hew thli
me ueinahddnt ~ many years anterior to The insitn
lion OF the suit; hat The tenaf were gnnrant of mi.
fict, until after the de mice vs ;o;na, d., r. -, -