Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-12-19
GENERAL COURT OF VIRGINIA.
Communicable IS. Jre HailstUcl

1OVuUHf"fuith = 1Ht't
the prisoner was indicted in The Superior
Court Of Stafford, on The 20lh day Of June, 1915,
Tried and found gully OF arson. The prisoner
moved for a new Trial, upon The ground oil a dec
laration made by Thomas Graves, one Of the u
rors who had tried her case. Graves was on the
yenire summoned 10 attend The said Court, and
when called upon in this case was sworn upon
his rOir dire, and declared that he had formed no
opinion as 10 The guilt Or innocence OF the &C
cused; he was then challenged p%eremptorily by
the prisoner. After all the persons
on the %yenire, who were in attendance, and all
the byslanders had been called and challenged
for cause or peremptorily, two Jurors were sill
wanting 10 complete the panel, and The She
riff was directed to go out in The neighboT-
hood and summon others for that purpose, when
the prisoner, BY her Counsel, agreed TO elect Two
Jurors from those persons who had been c~halleng-
ed, 10 which arrangement the Attorney for The
Commonwealth assented, and, thereupon, The pri-
soner elected, as one OF the Two Jurors, The said
Graves, who had been, previously, peremptorily
challenged. 1t appeared, from the affidavit Of
John Ii. Daniel, that, after The said Graves had
NS
been rejected, be went ont on the Court-green and,
accosang the a%fiant, said, in rather a warm and
excited manner, at is well | was rejected, for, if
| were on The jury, | would send her the other side
Of Boston," Some time after that, Daniel went
into the Court room, and saw, much TO his sur
prise, that Graves was upon the jury. He at once
communicated 10 the prisoners Counsel what had
roa.al batuoop Crauas md himcplf Al This
time, however, considerable progress had been
made in The trial. The affidavit Of Graves was
also fl ed, in which he states, that he has no re-
collection of using The expressions ascribed TO
him by Daniel, though he has no doubt that
he did so, as il is a common expression OF his,
and as Daniel states the fact. If he did use
the expression, it was without any meaning,
warmth or excitement on his part against The
prisoner, as he felt none-lhat, when sworn
on the Jury, he felt no bias or prejudice
against the prisoner, and believed that he could
give her a fair and impartial trial. He had
formed no decided opinion, as he had heard none
OF the evidence, although his impression was,
that, from the rumors he had heard, if they were
true, she was guilty. The Court below moi being
advised what judgment to give upon This state of
facts, on the application for a new trial, adjourn
cd the question TO this Court as one o%fnovelty and
difficulty. The Court decided, that The grounds
upon which the application was based were
moi sufficient 10 warrant a new trial, and,
for this opinion, they relied on the cases
Smith rs. Commonwealth, 2 Virginia cases, page
6, and Kennedy rs. Commonwealth, 9 Virginia
cases, page $40. The cause was argued in this
Court by P. V. Daniel, Jr., Esq, for the prisoner;
and by the Attorney General, S. S. Baxter, Esq,
for the Commonwealth.
The cases of Hunter Hill and Nose. Johnson
have been decided: we will lay before our read
ers reports Of them during this week. The Court,
we understand, are celebrating on The Parkers-
burg case.