Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-08-19

ma:on Of Moses Lpscomb. judgment given a. .lost
Matilda Tsskerslsy. for 6ns Of Slo, half to said
Lipscomb and the other half TO the Literary Fund.
From which judgment, the defendant appealed TO the
HustiRgs Court for the city OF Richmond, under the
Ssa sec OF the act concerning County and other In
Hastings Court affirmed the judgm. Of the Mayer
against NJ Tsnkersley and her security with costs. 81.
Tankersiey then petioned the Judge Of the Superior
Count Of Law for Henrico county, In vacation, for
ecrtioSeri assigning errors IN the said Judgments
aud proeeedngs-l. That the warrant was grsi cd on
the application oil Moses Lpsct mb and purpors be
Tor hi- benri; whereas II should have been gu tam
&c.2, That Lipscomb being the OF The slave,
coud not prosecute Tor the penalty under the ac-And
>. That neither warrant any Of the procec jngs
shew that the defendant was resident of the c y OF
Richmond. lie Judge awarded the certorsri, and di
rectcd that should operate supersedeas TO both
judgments. Pending The case on the e'rt'ora'i the
petitioner moved Tor trrif % error assigning Tor error
the lst and 81 set forth in the petition the
certiorarl and, in addition; that judgment given
Tor costs in the Court OF Hastings which could not be
done. The superior court hereupoD adjourned TO this
court the following questions.
The Judgment being for fine, for the breach OF
penal law, will the eert,orari lie in such casel
e. Ought tort Of tr'or TO the judgment, OF the 'us
,ings court, Affirming with costa ,bat OF the Mayor To
be awarded
Wha, judgment should be rendered.
decide:
1. 1hst as the judgment which was rendered by the
Msyor OF the city OF Richmond, appealed from by
the said Isnkersey. under the Esd section oil the
~ court law, and his Judgment was affirmed hy the
Court OF Illus ings against the said appesn, end her
surety under the 25h section Of the said law
was taken out the jurisdiction OF the Mayor. and tina
the Court OF Hastings being court OF record,
tioTori does not lie 10 judgment rendered In that
Court; and that this is true, where the prosecution
for a breach Of a penal law, well as iu a merely
civil case.
a Iha, there ia error in the juaglncn. Of the
Hastings Court, and that, therefore, no trIit If error
| should be awarded In this case.
y That the Superior curt ought 10 dismiss the ce
f'orart as mproviden'y awarded refuse 10 award the
to'u ~ error aud give Judgment against the appellant
nkcrsey, icr the costs oil the appellee, Lipscomb, in
| tho said Superior Court.
The Conmohw ealth, Adjourned case, from The supe-
Henry Maciin ~ OF 1;reensylls ~ WIG ''""'
his was an Informaiou under the act TO provid-
for the more :9,ci"ai punishment NJ e.rfnin .tnees"
ng'y, wiui!y, and without lawful authority, killing
and destroying two dogs belonging to Person Turner,
against the form Of tho sct. sc. 10 Ills information.
the defendant filed general demurrer The Superior
Court adjourned the que ston" Whist judgment ough,
the Court TO tender OH the drmurrert"
This Court WAS OF opiuon-iha. 10 sustain the prose
cution under thu act be held, that by the words
"P"Periy. rea' p,sonoi. the Legislature intended
10 embrace Dogs. Some OF the Judges of opn-
lon that the act docs not authorize prosecution Tor the
destruction OF any kind OF living domestic ANIMAL and
that by thoso words in The act the Legislature inerd-
ed property OF the s"me Kind as that before enuuera,-
ed or that IL cannot lie supposed that the lie gsla,ure
intended 10 embrace our valuable domestic animals nv
the word ' property" when in the sprecedng part OF
the act II had specially named property of much less
value. bu', without expressing any opinion as to The
correctness of this construction OF the act n majority
OF the Court was OF opinion that criminal prosecu-
lion cannot be sustained for the destruction OF Dogs
ihat oy the common law, the property in dogs AMI
other interior animals is such that larceny can
be committed by sterling them, though the poss .ssor
has 6ase property in them and may inainiain cyi
action Tor injuries done 10 them. And that i'm pen1!
act like tie one on which this prosecution was found
Cd me wore " prepe,fy" standing alone, oughito be
considered TO mean full and complete property such ns
by the common law may be protected by a public
Tor The larceny thereof For these reasons
murrer ought TO be sustained and judgment rendered
| for the defendant
william Settle. tPpoaa,> adjourned case rom tho
R, B. Mozingo. Appellee Richmond county. -" TOT
me Appellee pc iioned the County Court of Rich
county. through the appellants Lands. TO ihe main
county road, leading 10 the County Courthouse View
ers were appointed; and upon their report the Cour,
awarded summons TO The Appellant. TO shew cause
why the road should he opened-o on the return ot
The summons, both parties being present writ Of nd
Qnod ddm""n' was awarded. The Jurors after
viewing The said way and taking into consider The
Use oil the land 10 he laid OPEN and the additional
Ing which win he thereby rendered necessary" de-
cded that the dana ge the Appellant " lillian Sa,
would be fifteen dollars for road fifteen ieet wide in
the clear On the return of the Inquest, the COMFY
Court having examined snrdry Witnesses the said Sci
he upon the evidence a'duced moved 10 quash the re-
urn on me writ and new assessment OF damsges he
drecied but the Corrt overrucd the motion being nj
opinion mat the damages assessed adequate and
having considered and weighed all the circumstances
ajudged and ordered that leave ba granted TO the sail
A'os;ngO TO open the road according TO the PRAYER
his petition and that the oe as a public road
confirmed and established, and rdiudyed 10 The ne,
toner his costs The said Settle excepted 10 The op;n
ion OF the our setting ont in his Bill OF Executions
all tic evidence and appealed the Superior Court Of
Law ~ "
In the Superior Court by consent OF parties. tile evil
dence and examination OF witnesses, consined in the
record, were allowed evidence on the appesl and
further evidence dispensed with. TIE Superior
Couri adjourned several gues ions, hich the follow
ing answers given
his Court was unanimously of opinion and decided
L. That the act, entitled, m, act To reduce ;,to
me ne s'ptrdi ocfs rning public ,oads ondJor
establishing pubic landings" points out the mode nv
"hich any person may hsv~ road opened sc
so any oil the public places designated in IT, and does
not require that the place which the road il 10
run, should be public place. That il does lhore
lore, authorize person 10 make application TO county
court, TO have road opened or former orc nj
tered although the road in question leads from the ne
uioners residence, OH plantation not nj any nbic
place, TO main road leading 10 the county co,rbose
But that such road, when established ACCORDING IN ic
directions OF the act not 10 be considered as p,uoe
Uoy, but as public road.
That the act In question does confer ne " right. NJ
way, or new remedies for obtaining ways i'm addition
10 the common law tights and remc dies. when tho
way Claimed is for convenience OF travelling 10 the
county ccurthouie to any public warehouse landing
ferry, mill, coal mines, lead or iron works. or 10 tbc
Seat OF Government" although the Place where the
road is begin, is private house or plantation Bu,
That such roa is not mere private way but public
road
3 That il the Judge of the said Superior Court #
Ter weighing all the circumstance appearing In the
county court record. which has been or NAV Is,
proved before him, shall be OF opinion st it is better