Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-08-14

Chapler 2O2 Or CoIonel's lnquesls.
Chaper 203 OF search warrants.
Mr. MAYO moved 10 strike oul the clauses
authorizing search warrants TO be issued 10,
"aDy book or other thing containing obscene Ia n
guags, or any print, picture, figure, or descrin.
lion, maniiestIy lending TO conup. The morals u
youth, and intended 10 be sold, loaned. circulated
or distributed, or 10 be introduced into family.
school or place Of educalion--or for LOTTERY tick
els, or materials unlawiully made, provided or
procured Tor drawing louefy."
| Mr.. MAYO ed this provision as an in.
quisi,orial interference with the private rphIs Of
| individuals. VINO Wuu IL 1T The mere, nj M,
Iignanl neighbors Mr.. MAYU'S motion va,
| lost.
Chapter col. u arrest, commitment AM
bail.
Chapter EOS examining courts
Mr.! SMITH moved 10 amend section !, 20 Is
TO prov DE- that the committing magistrate >ha!
moi sill on The examining court, watch shall cor
sisl OF al leas, five JUSTICES.
| Mr. HART resis'd this amendment as &c.
deciion on justices, wac generally dislik,T 10 s
| in such cases.
Mr.. SMITH cited cases in which a maeis.
lrate, even huugh requested by The counsel OF the
| accused, had sci on a courI, watch often ac,fd
as The final arber oil Justice. Mr. s allud 10
the danger OF The magistrates exeGtins his in1u-
| ence on The couiI.
Mr. MAYO, while in favor Of the amerd
ment thought Inconvenience mich! often arise
tom the d fficully Of draining court, ard sug.
gest,d such Md fcainn.
Mr. SMITH accepted an amerd nept susgts-
ted by MIR. MONCURE OF S., providing Tor The
exclusion ctlhe committing magistrate from The
examining cour, with The consent OF The accused
IL was agreed TO-
Section III reads thus: 1.-THE court in which a
person is examined as aforesaid, discharge him,
he shall not thereafter be questioned or lTied for
The same offence eIe.pt on indictment fund Nth.
in t,os pc months meceftTj IN ,saieA case NJ oihcr
e1am,netlon M VI b. necessary"
MIR WATSON moved 10 Strike nuI The words
in italics. Mr. W. strongly resisted the princi.
pie oil allowing a man 10 be prosecuted after
having been fully ard fairly discharged by an
Examining Count.
Mr. SCOTT thought this one Of The wisest
Provisions in the CCd., 10 secure due al ninis-
lraIion Of public juslice AID punishment where il
is ne. Mr. S. argued that The action by an Ell.
aiming Court shou Il moi be final, according
to the mod. oil proceed ng there. Moreover, The
effect OF MIR Walson's proposition will be 10
induce the parties instead II packing jurics, to
pack the Examining Couus, as was often done.
Mr. S. saw no harm in thus furnishing every
means 10 viEdicae the majesty vi the law-bu;
saw gfea, mischief in lhc contrary Practice.
Mr. WATSON, Ia confirmation oil wnai he hs ii
Al first said, showed that The law OF 1874 nj the
decision ofan Examining C0un final, al d that la W
had been retained with the exception OF one single
case oil felony, which rarely occurs, (viz The sab
bling h concealed weapons,) in iorce until The
revision OF lhe Criminal Code OF 1878, which
had enacted The provision allowing party 10 be
ind uith he La h.oh
had been 50 long sanctioned, should not te disturb
| ed. Mr. w was surpiizsd 10 hear The gentleman
talk oil packing" the Examining Courts. de
| never knew an accused 10 escape by The corrupt
practices OF an Examining Courl-and he resist
| ed The provision as a reflection on them. II this
| Law passes the decision Of the Examining Cour
will be worth nching. or rather will be most mis-
| chievous-it will only furnish clue upon his
| Track 10 the ehemies Of The accused. We had
better d. away with Examining Court altogether
than enact this provision.
| Mr. lRVlNG protested against this attempt &c
break dJwn one OF the barrier. thrown by the
| law around me ri. his d. The citizen who Is en-
| titled IL Ihlee examinations; lst, By The Court u
| the county; -. By III" G!and jury; and s., b. a
trial before jury oil his peers. Mr. |. COMMENDED
| that, from The circumstances Of The case, line de
cison OF al Examining Cuuil was as strong ans
i
man. TINS acquitted. may b, dragged before a
Grand Jury, who may indic and prosecute him
On the &c p7rie evidence OF a pequre! witness
| Mr. FERGUSON thought the original section
should he passed as il Is. He thought il We
| ry improba bic that man VINO, after fn!l eSam
patton, has been discharged by an Examining
Court would lie afterwards inteT!eIed with
Sill there may be cases in which fair exami
nation was not hal. MI cite; recent case, ir
which party charged with murder and acquitted
by an Examining Couu through The symPalh,
OF the community, was afterwards indicted by
Grand Jury. Very often new evidence is found
mos. material 10 The proper discharge OF Justice
Mr. F thought The Grand Jury would never iner
iere in these cases except in instances OF slos:
and glazing injustice.
Mr. SCOTT replied a, some length 10 the ar
sumcnls OF Mcssrs Watson and lfving-con
tending that the Examining Courts might mis-
take The law and the facts, and were never desieI
ed 10 be hnal
MIR IRVING followed declaring that The
gentleman had not ans s cred several points which
he hal made.
fMr 5 said he had answered them
Mr. DORMAN sustained the amendment. Ht
never knew decision OF All examining Caur
of which any complaint could Justly be made
The effcc OF The section, as il stands, is 10 make
attorneys for commonwealth supervisors, TO con
troll the Examining Courts.
Mr. THOMSON OF J, compared this propos
ed innovation 10 lie dtfnitiou by EfehchmaI
Of the difference between rheumatism and soui
"When you put mans hand in vice aDt
| squeeze him as much as you can, II is Iheu
ma!ism-give him another wrench, and il i
govt So, after torluring a man before an Ex
aiming Court, il is here proposed by The fell pre-
secuors and prosecutors 10 torture him again be
fore grant and peli, jury. MIR L said il wa
enough for him 10 knowu thai Tins section wa:
prepared BY tive prosecuting attorneys, TO secure
his opposition.
Mr. DORMAN moved The previous question
Mr. WATSON'S amendment was agreed to
ayes 4G, noes 81.
1.-THE debate was very long, interesting ant
amusing. The friends OF The amendment arsue'
that the feelings Of The prosecuting attorneys, IL
their bitter pursu oil unjus'ly assaIled innocence
iaduced them to oppose The chAnge-whe il
opponents charged the gentlemen Oh The olhc
side With being biased in their views by thei
character as defenders of the accused
Chapter FOG OF Grand Juries.
Mr. FERGUSON moved 10 amend section
so as not 10 disqualiy "owners and occupiers 0
water grisl mills" from serving on grand jurles
Mr. F. said that in his county many of the bes
men pu, NJ iliIe mills, for The express pufpos'
Of disqualilying themselves
Mr. LACY opposed the change The law hat
worked we'll 10 hi. region. The reason Tor ex
GLIDING owners Of Mills, &c, WIS because !he'
We're liable 10 be presented Tor violations OF Law
IN regard 10 water courses tolls, &c.
Mr. FERGUSON II every man liable Il
be presented is exempted, it will be impo sib
10 have g:and jury.
The amendment WIS lost.
Chapter COZ Oh presenlmen,s, indictment:
and inlorma ions; and process thereon.
Chapter 208. Ol trial and lis incidents.
Mr. FERG USON was in favor ot The provis
10: which requires "a Jurors TO be summoned
but he was opposed 10 allowing The juries 10 b.
selected by gambling. He therefore moved tt
strike OUT The following; "he accused shall hay,
no persmp,ory challenge, except '.ial he maj
strike from The pane! mol exceeding eight oil TIL
names thereon; aud then The jury for The lfia
shall be composed OF " 'lvr of those mol s.
stricken of Ia be seecrsi by l1i" and 10 inser
the following: "ihe accused sha strike ftom lh'
panel Twelve Of the names thereon; and then hi
jury for The trial shall be composed OF The re
| IN in;no