The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-01-27
.HusTINes COURT.
The indictments Against Nor
ris Quashed.

HoIlon Haue Ny inc counSel tho day be-
fore to quash the indictment against
NJ. G. Morris, charging him with en-
bezzlement. The case was thoroughly
discussed the day before by the counsel
on both sides, but the court adjourned
without rendering decision, desiring
time to look up the 10 " on the question.
immediately after the assem- bling of
the court Judge Robertson in substance
read the following decision: Tho In.
dictments are defective, / think, be-
cause they do not charge from whom
and under what circumstances the
money was received, because there is
not sufficient particularity to give the
party notice of what charge he has to
defend, nor is there su fiicient to enable
him, in future trial for the same Of.
tense, to plead q conviction or an &C
4 quittal in fine"
He cited the case of Arlington VS.. the
! commonwealth, IL S. L r., 224, which
| was an Indictment for selling liquor
!, without license and which indictment
J did not set forth the place of the
/ alleged sale. In this case the court of
! appeals declared the indictment defec-
! tive. He also cited the case of Hess VS..
! United States, 1874, U. s. r., 142, in which
J the doctrine ID laid down that where the
offense Is purely statutory las is the
case here) it Is as o general rule sufll-
cient to charge in the words of the
statute; but to this general rule there is
THE qualification: that there must be
sufficient particularity for tho accused
to be apprised with reasonable certainty
of the nature of the accusation against
him, to the end that he may prepare
his defense, plead the Judgment in the
bar to any subsequent prosecutor for the
same offense, and an Indictment not SO
, framed Is defective, although it may
follow the language of the state.
This indictment is not under section
y. S37, which provides for cases of embez-
element of public funds by officers where
1t would only be necessary to show that
the funds were those of the city and
that the accused had them in his custody
by virtue of his office. This Indictment
is based on (371G) which provides that
If any person wrongfully use, dispose,
conceal or in any way dispose of money,
goods, bills, etc, which he has received
for another or by virtue of his office, he
shall be deemed guilty of tho larceny
thereof In this Indictment it is merely
charged that the accused received a GER
tain sum for the city of Roanoke.
''There is nothing to show from whom
he received or how he came to receive
the money, and If he was tried and ac-
quilted of this charge there would be
nothing on tho record to prevent him
from being tried again for exactly the
same offense and being convict ed All
that would have to be done would BIO in
the next case to follow tho language Of
some other general clause of the stat
ute."
Several other authorities were cited
to sustain the decision, and for these
reasons the judge said:
"a think all the indie tments mos. /,
and 81 in which the city is interested
should be quashed."
MIR. Morris, as has already been
stated, has settled in full his indebted
ness to the city, both principal and in
forest. This is gratifying to his many
friends, and shows that their 'conten-
ton that there was no criminal intent
coupled with the misplacing of the
money was correct
So far as the city is concerned there
is now no charge against Mr.. Morris.
The case against Morris, brought by
the administrators of Ross, charging
him with fraudulently disposing Of
money found on the body of Ross at his
death, was continuedn to the next term,
and the 18th of February set for its
trial. The jurors were dismissed for
the present term. Another very i'm
portant dc cisicn was rendered in the
case Of Joseph Lawson &. Co., vs.. e.
Meyer. wherein the plaintiffs had At
tached certain property to secure the
payment of debt and the wife of Meyer
had filed petition claiming that the
property attached, consisting of furni-
ture, was her individual property.
The court stated that the principles
laid down in this case of Yates VS.. Law,
Sc Va, r., p. 100, are directly applic-
able to this case. The chief thing of
interest was tho decision that thy
woman and petitioner in this case was
not a competent witness cit is obvi-
ous'' said, the decision "that not only
is her husband party to this proceed
ing, but that he is directly interested in
the result Of this controversy. The
common law, which says that the hus-
band and wife can testify neither for or
Gfainst each other, has been modified
lsy that extent that where the husband
is mere formal party and has no inter-
est in the subject matter or in the re-
suit Of the suit, then the wife is COM
petent witness in her own behalf. But
that not being the case in this question
1t is my opinion that tho petition should
be dismissed at the cost OF the petit
TONER"
"SAID PASTA" tonight at the Opera
House. "The Gondoliers" will be pro-
scented tomorrow night.
The Elks at Bristol.
A large number of the members of
the Roanoke Lodge Of Elks will go to
Bristol to-day to participate in tho SER
vices of the incorporation of a lodge in
that city. The now lodge will be in the
Tennessee division.