Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-07-29

cephon presents tho only alleged s,,o. - az ~
titiouer ''e"oh Oh inc Pc
Blythe C1wt-The cases Sers,otsr. ss.,,., -. an.
cour', have seitled-hat one VIII, has formJ , ~ WV
pressed dectded opioion as TO the guilt or ,rns"
oil the accused 10 competent Juror: Tn,
material whether that opinion be founded nm Ms..'
whose testimony he may have he ard
upon another trial; CONVEX atoms with wi,pe,ss.
common report sit 10 enough that the opinion 4, !, ~
cided one, and has been expressed The exnres,ian
an opinion goes far 10 she that |, de cideJ
s' 'n general not 20 readily abandoned as one vh,.h
never has been avoweJ. No case, however has con.
me ieng,h OF deciding, that an opuiop boyev-r Am
oe,s,eiy IL may have been formed, and howevsr a.
eided Its character, 10 not disqualification uni.i.
has been expressed. Nor does the court ,bipk 4, 49,.
shy 10 give any opinion on that question on IN. nrs
cent oceaion; being unanimously OF opinion thst r.
OF TIE juror, in this case were moi of hss
deliberate and decided character which il n.css.a,w -
n he states that bis cpinion Hypothetical
ahougn ne uid mol doubt the ttu n Of what he h,S
ues'u, ye', " The evidence turned out Otherwise he
oau no doub, but that he would be able to de eide ae
corupg 70 'he evidence, without being o apv d.,rs.
influenced by tho "mpre ssions' mad, on b;s n;nd DO
what he had heard. An opinion which is deela,.d h.
.ne parry entertaining 1t to be "hypothetc,p'-one
which VIII not in any degree, Influence his de c,on
cannot be decided" one; il cannot have been orm
ed on collaboration" The court IL uaanimons,v ~
'nat there is no error ia the judgment com.
p,ansd OIL and doh therefore, reject The raid petition
george w. Gusts, Writ Of error, to sm.nt Of
The Commonwealth. New Kent county. VI ID" "'
Ihe plaintiff here, was prevented in the sur.,,or
court OF law for the ciurty o. Nav Kent for AN NM
'eo Puohs nuisance. The information contained 10.
sonus The bret count charged that ne ar the dwell.
Ing houses OF divers zsns, and aI,o near diyer.
h,shways he erected and put up mill dam by means
OF winch dam' the water was stopped up and became
sagpant, from which stagnaui water, 80 siopped up
uowhoiesome and hur,foi smells and stenehss arose
whereby the air became and was greatly corrupsd AID
nI'c'ed' SO hs The heath Of The people residing near
the DAM aud all o'hrs passing and repassisg by the
u uatn was injured and impaired TO tina danag. and
common nuisanse OF all the psople, only near the
dam residing, but sIs0 Of all o,be paujns tho said
oi of a. ~
mon sslih" " '-' O'A'
The second count, charged tina, the said Cus,. "n.ar
eert'n hikewayereotsd SIN al! dam and suffered tito
remain erected for lorg space of time by reason 81
wfich dam, so erccsd the water cole aboys the
GAM ana near the same, and near to the highway and
became sakpant, from which stagpant wafer an whole-
some sienehes and smells arose, which corrupted and
injected the air, so that, by reason of all which pre
mses the health of the psopie residing mar tbs sam
Jam, and the said water go collected near hs said
highway and OF AL others passng aud rspassipg the
said highway, besams and wa, grsaty Injured aud i'm
pared, to tho damage and nusancs Of the mao
pie residing near the said dam, and Of all others pa
Common saith" r " ~
The defendant appeared, and pleaded "not guilty. in
manner and fosm Sc" This jury found the defer daut
guilty, and assessed bis fins to five dollars; the court
gave Judgment accordingly for the 6ne and that The
defendant abate The nuisance, SC.
Do the trial OF the issue, the defendant moved tho
court TO instruct ihs jury 'bat to enable tbs Com
monweallh TO recover. i. was net only necessary to
prove maj single family residing in the sshbour-
hood OF The alleged nuisance had been rjured in their
health ny the sane but that il mus, bs prnved tb,t
all he people In the neighbourhood or all passing mr.
repasing said highway, would probably he injured bv
The alleged puisance and further thai IL IN. iurv be
te'ed thsta public road established and passed
over me SAID mill dam and that the alleged nuisance
could notbe abatd without cutting said dawn and Tia,
the cutting OF said dam would create greater common
nuisance Than the one charged in the information they
must ma Tor The defendant" Watch ins ucish, thu
court refused 10 give; bus instructed the iury that
,hey must be saiisied that tae allie cations of tbs in.
FORMATION were substantially proved before they found
Aal Ia hla a..
monwealth to msDiain the prosecution, it was not a.
noush TO prove, that one Of the citizens of the Com
monWeahb, and numerous family residing near the
ponu OF water created by the erecting of the DAM had
been Injured In their health by the same; but /, must
be proved, that all the citzsns of the Commonwealth
residing In The neighbourhood, all the citizens u.s
sing aud repas'iDg The public road or highway runnrg
over the DAM near TO the said poad by The erec
ton OF the dam, might be or was ahla a., h.
the said alleged nuisance"
Inc errors assigned in this court were:
l.. hat mere was positive msdirc c,ion 20 the in.
~ lhlhe instruction prayed being that 10 sustain
'ne prosecution, The oy must be satisfied that all the
ezsns OF the nc ghbouyhood and all passing and re
plssi1s me highway, would probably be injured in
.heir health by the nuisance the court rsnssd
70 give The Instruction, aud instructed the iury Thai
,ae prosecutor must to sustain the pro,ssu,ion provs
'nat al The citizens OF the neighbourhood ard all pas
sing aud repassing the highway running over The dam
might or was liable 10 be injured, (no in health but
generality by the alleged nuisance: an ins,ructon
WI ws,eh' 'sken 10 connexion with the molten imports
wa, " was enough to prove thst the ci,izsn n, mi hit
probably be njnrsd where IL was Necessary 10 nrovs
NAV the health OF the citizens or bad been In Ict
injured thereby; espeeaiIy seeing that the nfoymso,
me iact pr svely (not the possibility or even
PROBABILITY OF II onlY) Iha, the health of The citizen,
imps.Sd.' s'' '"j'eu Emu
2. THAT The erred in no. ins,rue,ins the ;,,v
'ha' rs pubic highway over the da,o "a fact
stated exp-esi.y in he cour.s own chlrgs no prose-
cuion could be maintained for a nusanc. In ersc,ing
and keeIing up that dam which il woulJ have hsans
puolic nuisance TO cut dcwn aad so 10 obslrus ,bs
public highway established and running over the sans
rms court 0ds Of optnion-Tha there was nc error
IN The Judgment OF The Superior Cour, of Law over
iuhns the motion fo' Instructions TO the ury and ,hat
'he court did light ia refusing both the ins,ruc,ions
etkeu nut ms court was further OF npinon tba, the
sucsoo gwen 70 ne jury, by the Superior Court Of
Law was erroneou; aud, for That csuse reversed The
said judgment, sst aside the verdict of the i,rv .nS
rematdsd the cause, &c. - ""N
H'rr'0n Word w'i.Of error. to Judgment Of
III, Us Z the Superior Court OF Law
The Cen monwsalh. ) for Buckingham county. "'
Inc grand jury pssseDed The plaintiff in error will,
several oihere 'or 'nnawui gaming al cards. In Hoe
kah Lipsconb's tavern, in Maysve in ~ ,onn,v =,
BuekiDshan, with n six mon ~ ('b-u) lac, past -
Inc court Immediately ordered proce,s r,iu,nabls
JorfhiDih. summorirg hsm all TO appear befor, IN,
eouF' .fen sIung' ITO answer presenmept of The
gshu Jury, made against them at that it M Tor unsw-
Iui gaming al cards. without specifying az the re-.
sentiment does, tohere and tohen the offence sh.ts.d
Vas ccmnlled. The summons being executed on ali
me dsisndans, the presen'men was tried az 10 the
pisiniin In error, at the zane term ii was made Hs
was an mani; AMI the court, the mo ion Of the Al
iorney Tor tue Commonwealth. assigned him guardian
70 defend him in the prosecution The guardian far
o.. n.n; PLEADED NOT guilty" The jury sworn to Try
the issue joined this plea found him emil w. and th
court gave judgment for fine Of $50 and eo,is
aPpears by bill OF exceptions that at tie tiai
'aIser tue evidence was through, tbs defendant bv