The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-02-04
CHAHooN AND SANDS, 1 IS,
Decision or the Court OF Appeals.
THE THE PRISONERS TO HAVE new
g5yE TRIALS. 2

THE PRIsONERs TO HAVE new
g.yF TRIALS. q
me Court of Appeals on yesterday de-
GSioeu G .uc cases OF the Commonwealth VS..
ys. Johnson 81. Sands, conyieted of seionv '
The judges present were Moncure, stanies.
Christian, and Anderson. There was
large attendance of lawyers and other Nor.
sons interested in these cases under CON.
| slderation, and some excitement was ev;-
dent when the result was known, which
was not until two. hours and a half had
been consumed in the reading OF Opinions.
In. the case Of Chahoon the court was
equally divided upon the first point of error
tassigned-to wit: the failure to send the
accused before q justice of the peace for
examination before being put upon his
trial before jury. Judges Moncure and
Anderson sustained the decision of the
Hustlngs Court, while Judges Staples and
Christian thought it erroneous. The effect
of the, equal division of the court is to sus-
tain the decision of the court below on this
point. @- . - >'-.''-' :,
The court affirmed the decision of the
Hustings Court refusing to quash the in.
dlctment because the grand jury was con-
stltuted OF freeholders; but it reversed the
decislon-of the court refusing to quash the
reTasre tdctds which was issued for the trial
of the accused This writ simply COM
manded the Sergeant to summon "4 per.
sons qualified to vote and hold office under
the present Constitution Of the State" The
court decided that the provisions of the ex-
listing law requiring the jury to consist of
freeholders must be carried out until the
Legislature shall pass a. new law conform
n mr. di IN
composition of the jury in cases of felony
to those of the present Constitution For
this error the Judgment of the Hustines
Court was reversed, and the case rsmanded
for new trial. ..
Upon the point Of error assigned that the
court below had refused to permit the wit
ness, Folkes, to state the conversation be-
tween Sands and Sanxay, which occurred
in his presence, in reference to their rea-
sons for failing to plead in the action on the
Dond IN the county court, the court decided
that such conversation, if it occurred in i'm
mediate connection with the failure to file
the plea, would be competent evidence for
tne prisoner as part of the res qestg, but
tnaI m II otherwise it would not be evidence.
TT, Inc court affirmed the decision of the
hustlngs Court upon the other points
talseu, except that it prescribed different
nouincat,on t Oh one or more of the instruc.
tlons to the jury from that adopted hv tha
court below. e''" ~ VIC
In the case of Sands, the court sttirmed
the decision OF the court below. ref,Isino ~
aischarge the accused because of the al,
1eged iapSe OF three terms without trial,
~ uecided tnat the Hastings Court erred in
refusing to quash the uenire fucios which
issued for the trial of the prisoner and IN
effect decided that the jury for the tr;al ~ ~
a felony should be composed of freehnlI.
ers, according to the law in existence he-
fore the adoption Of the present ConStitn.
tion, and that this course should he nnr-
sued until the Legislature shall chanoe tho
law so as to make it conform to the pre.ent
Constitution. Upon this ground it reversed
the decision the case.
This was the only point necessary to be
decided in the case, inasmuch as its deci.
sion reversed the judgment and gave the
accused a new trial. But the court went
on to express its opinion as to other points
made in the former trial, and which might
arise again. It decided that the Hustings
Court erred in admitting as evidence the
Page, escheator, which involved the pro.
ceedngs taken to escheat The property oil
! Haunstein. This record is not to be ad.
mitted in future trial of the case.
| Upon the question Of the admisSibility OF
the testimony Of Thomas r. Bowden in this
case, detailing the particulars OF his CONVEX
sation with SanXay when the claim was first
| presented to him, the court were equally
divided, Judges Moncure and Anderson
thinking the testimony admissible, while
Judges Christian and Staples thought it in
admissible.
| After the instruction of the court to the
Ijury, which was objected to by the accused,
the court decided that the instruction, as
asked for by the accused, should have been
given, but with modification different from
that adopted by the Hastings Court, and
| prescribed the form In which such instruc-
ton should be given on the future trial.
Upon the other points made the court sus-
tained the rulings Of the Hastings Court,
except that no pinion was given on the
question whether new trial should, upon
the facts proved, have been granted to the
| accused, the court having decided that some
| of the evidence before the former jury had
been improperly admitted, and it being,
| therefore, not necessary or proper to pass
on that question now.
The case of Sands, therefore, goes back
| for a new trial in conformity to the views
expressed by the Court of Appeals.
AS some attempt has already been made
to make political capital out ofthe decision
granting Chahoon new trial, it Is not i'm
proper to state that the Court of Appeals
reviewed in detail the action of the lower
court in regard to the testimony, and sus-
tanned its decisions in every point, virtually
deciding that the conviction was just, and
| that Judge Guigon was right In refusing to
grant the motion made before him for
new trial.