The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-01-15


HIN BY TIE SUPREME CoURT.-ln the Su-
dent, Hon. r. c. L. Moncure, delivered the
unanimous opinion of the judges in the case
of Dull Us. Commonwealth. Dull was tried
The specific charge was that he "did steal :,
take, and carry away divers notes Of the ma.
tional currency OF the United States for
S570, the property of one Joseph NJ.
FoWlkes." The testimony was published at
the time. and is familiar to most of our.read.
crs. The accused was tried, convicted, and
sentenced to three years confinement in the
penitentiary. His counsel, Mr. James Nee
son, applied to the Supreme Court for 3 writ
of error 10 the judgment of the Hastings
Court, which was granted, and the case was
argued here by him and the Attorney.Gen-
eral.
The following errors were contended for
as existing in the rulings Of Judge Gujgon
I. That the indictment ought to be quashed
for errors on the face thereof.
II. That the Hastings Court erred in
giving the following Instructions:
1st. That if the jury believe from the evi-
dence that Robert Purdy, Dr.. Lewis, or any
other persons at the house OF the accused, by
the use of false pretences obtained from one
Joseph NJ. Fowlkes the sum of S570 the
jury cannot find the accused guilty of
the larceny alleged in the Indictment
unless they are satisfied from the
evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that
the prisoner was present, aiding and abettihS
therein, or suffered or permitted the said
persons so using the false pretence to us e
said house with knowledge that such persons
intended to use the said house for the en-
ployment of such fraudulent pretence. But
if the prisoner was within easy call to aid or
assist them in their purpose, or in escaping,
or in getting rid of or misleading the per.
son from whom such money was obtained,
that is presence, aiding and abetting, and the
prisoner is as guilty as If he were personally
present. ... .
Cd. The Court further instructs the jury
that If the said Robert Purdy, Dr.. Lewis, or
anv other person, used fraudulent pretcnces
in the defendants house, and thereby OBJ
tuincd from one Joseph NJ. Fowlkes the sum
of $40, the defendant being absent will not
render the defendant liable under this in
dictment though the defendant himself may
have used the same house for unllWiui GAM
ing, unless the defendant permitted the saiu
Robert Purdy, DR.. Lewis, or other persons
To use bis said house for the employment OF
such false pretences and with knowledge that
such use was to be made of the said house.
3D.. If the jury believe from the evidence
that the prisoner aud others concerted and
conspired together TO induce, by false repre-.
sentatlons, the witness, Joseph NJ. FOwkes,
or any other person who might be induced
by such representations TO enter the house
of the prisoner, and to obtain the money oil
such person By false pretences, or rented his
house to be used for such purpose by said
conspiratOrs, and that In pursuance OF such
concert one of the prisoners confedcratcs il.
duced the witness, Joseph II. Fowlkes, to
60 into the said house, and by false repre-
sentations and pretences did obtain q large
sum Of money from }. VI. Fowlkes, and that
the prisoner was present or within easy cal
to aid or assist them in their purpose, or IN
escaping, or in getting rid Of or misleading
the person from whom such money was ob
tanned, then the prisoner is as guilty rs IL he
himself had Obtained the money from the
said Joseph n. FoWlkes.
Further, 1t was assigned as error that the
Hastings Court refused TO set aside the YER
dict and award the prisoner new trial
which was asked TOR on the following
grounds first, that the court erred in Civ
Ing The Instructions above mentioned; and
second, because the charge Of the Judge tc
tho jury was wrong touching the measure
OF punishment, Us the evidence against The
prisoner tended to prove a case OF false pre-
tences, and not larceny, otherwise than al
resulting from such false pretences.
The supreme Court decided that there
was no error in the Judgment OF the Hts'