Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1833-07-25

free negro shall be punished by stripes,
or by Imprisonment in the county Jail,
or by Imprisonment in the public Jail
or pehitentiary house, this act authori-
yes them in the one case as well as the
other, to render the judgment, and make
the proper order to the sheriff to infict
the stripes, to convey him to the coun-
ty jail, or to convey him 10 the public
jail and penitentiary house.
In the case before us, the Circuit
Court of Shenandoah had no jurisdic-
ton to try the prisoner. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in advising and
directing that court to arrest the judg.
ment, and set aside the verdict which
has been rendered, and to order the pri-
soner to be carried before a Justice of
the peace for the county Of Shenando-
an, who may proceed with his case de
moro, and deal with him according TO
law.
In this decision, Judges Broken.
brough, Parker, Upsher, May, Lomax
and Duncan, concur.
Judge Thompson dissents, being en-
tirely satisfied that the act intended to
subject free negroes for all felonies to
the same punishment as slaves, and to
the trial in all such cases before justi-
ces of oyer and terminer, except In no.
mocide, and in cases where the punish
ment shall be death, by which he I'm.
derstands cases in which the free ne
groes are punishable by death by the
said act. In the accepted cases Of no.
micide, and all capital offences, the act
intended to give, and has given, the
free negro the benefit Of a trial before
the Circuit Superior Court.
Judge Brown also dissents from the
decision, but for different reasons.
The following is the judgment of the
General Court, as entered on the re-
cord:
"This Court is of opinion, and doth
decide, that the Circuit Superior Court
of Law and Chancery for the county
of Shenandoah, had no jurisdiction to
try the said Newton Weldon for the
crime of horse stealing, with which he
was charged, the said crime when COM
mitted by a free negro or mulatto, not
being punishable by death, but by i'm
prlsonment in the public jail and peni-
tertiary house, and that for the said
crime he could only be tried by the
justices of oyer and tcrminer for the
said county: and the court is therefore
Of opinion, and doth decide, that the
judgment in the said case shall be ar
! 7 is;ca he verdict set aside, and the
lprisoner be ordered by the said court
to be carried before some justice in,
and for the said county, to be dealt
with according to law. Which is or
dercd to be certified to the said court. .
SECOND CASE.
The Commonwealth An adjourned case from
wOodson Marks. Of Augusta County.
This was a case of Burglary com.
mltted by the prisoner, who was a free
negro; verdict was rendered against
him, u motion was made to arrest the
Judgment: the Circuit Court adjourned
the question, and by this Court q SINH.
lar judgment was entered in his case,
as in that of Weldon's.
THIRD CASE.
The Commonwealth An adjourned case from
| as. the Circuit Superior Court
William Sunkct. ) of Accomack county.
This was case IN which verdict
was rendered against the prisoner, a
free negro, for grand larceny over
twenty dollars. A similar judgment
was entered as in the two first cases.
FOURTH CASE.
! Tasco rlon,nson | Application for writ Of
the Commonwealth F Fr1dario superior Court Of
The petitioner, a free negro, was in
dicted, tried by jury, convicted, and
sentenced by the Circuit Court to be
hanged for the crime Of assaulIing and
attempting to ravish white woman,
which is declared to be felony by stat.
ute, and punishable with death. The
Court was of opinion that the Circuit
Court had jurisdiction, and that there
was no error in the judgment, and re.
fused the writ of error. The petitioner
by his counsel in this case, contended
that the court of Oyer and Terminer
apne had the jurisdiction, and that that
court were bound to impannel a jury to
try it. But the General Court decided
that in such case the act did not confer
the jurisdiction on the Courts of Oyer
and Terminer, and that it remained, as
heretofore, IN the Circuit Superior
Courts.
N. b. 1t is said that difference of
opinion has manifested itself in different
counties on the construction of this law.
This Is not surprising. But it is known