The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-01-13
TO HANG FOR MURDER.
GEORGE DRIER WILL NOW P1T THE
PENALTY OF HIS CRIME.
The Supreme Court of Appeals Affirms
tho Judgment of tho County Court OF
Northampton-No Errors Found.

Among the decisions handed down at
the Supreme Court of Appeals yesterday
was the following The opinion was writ
ten by Judge L. L. Lewis. president OF
the court:
Writ of error of the circuit court Of
northampton county, rendered April
q. 1892, affirming a judgment OF the
county court of that county sentencing
the prisoner George Drier, TO be hanged
for the murder of Fanny McFadden. j.
W. G. Blackstone for the plaintim In
error. The Attorney-General for the
Commonwealth
The story Of the murder. Ia Srlef Is
that Drier had been employed as an over
seer for Mrs. McFadden, and he muir
dered her in cold blood for her money.
The brutal act was committed October IL,
1891
The first assignment of error, that the
prisoner upon his arraignment in the
county court ought to have been in
formed either by the court or clerk OF
his rights TO be tried in the circuit court,
is clearly without merit. The Statute
now carried into section 4Ol6 of the Code
simply provides that a person to be tried
for a capital felony may upon his ar
ralgnment In a county court, demand 10
be tried in the circuit court IL does
not say that he shall be advised OF his
rights in the premises. nor does It su-
persede any new ceremony TO the ar
raignment.
The subject Of the next and principal
objection Is the overriding by the court
Of the motion to quash the writ OF Venire
facias and the return thereon. The mo-
4 . h.. rfF Of
the Jury. and it is contended that It ought
TO have been granted. because the list
furnished the sheriff by the judge, from
which TO summon the jury. contained the
names of not twenty only. but twenty
one persons. The argument is that the
Statute requires that the judges list, IN
the first instance, shall contain twenty
names. and no more, and that this re-
qulrement is imperative.
But, upon consideration, we are OF
opinion that this position is untenabie.
Such is not the language or the meaning
of the Statute.
Prior to the act OF March %. 1871, the
writ required the officer in a felony case
10 summon twenty-fOur persons, who
were selected by himself but by that act
an important change in the law was eff
fected, and it was provided that the per
sons summoned should be taken from
list furnished by the judge.-Acts 1901,
page 3d.
This statute was construed in Sands
case, q Grattan, ST.. In that case there
was a motion to quash the writ and the
return on the ground that the list fur
nlshed by the Judge contained the names
Of only twenty-four persons. it being in
sisted that e ought TO have contained
more than that number so that the OFF,
GERS might have made a selection from the
persons named in the list. But this court
held that while II would be better for
the list to contain more than twenty-four
names, and that the act no doubt contem-
plated IL generally would contain more,
yet that a list containing only thar num-
Der did not invaldate the execution OF
the writ and his ruling was reaffrmed
I'm Albert Mitchelrs case, 80 Grattan, S45.
In the last mentioned case II was said:
1T was not necessary that the list from
which the venre was directed 10 be
summoned should have contained the
names Of more than twenty-four persons,
although Il might have contained more. "
The present statute, Code, section 4OlS,
differs so far as the present case Is con-
cerned from the act construed in those
cases ONLY in the number OF persons re-
ouired TO be summoned, the number now
being twenty instead of twenty-fouri so
that IL IL was proper for the list 10 con-
tain more than twenty-four names under
that act. ii is equally proper now under
the code for II TO contain more thah
twenty.
II IS true. the language in Vawties
case. 81 Va, 245, warrants the Inference
that I'm the opinion OF the court 1t was
irregular for the list 10 contain more
than the latter number. But this Ian
glIage was used unguardedly, and besides
II was not necessary 10 the decision oil
the case. inasmuch as the objection, as
the court said was not made before the
swearing Of the jury. The attention OF
the court moreover. was not called 10 tht
cases above mentioned, which settled the
question. and to which we adhere.
The great and decisive point In the cast
was as to the omission of venire t'
summon an additional number OF persons
10 complete the panel, and this was heie
10 be an error apparent on the record
for which alone the Judgment was re
versed, in conformity With Han s. o. va
555.
And as this disposes Of all the questions
arising in the case, II follows that tn
Judgment must be affirmed
other Gases.
RyrI against
~ Court OF Louisa county. Affirmed Juds'
Lacy delivering opinion, Judge Fauntiero'
| dissenting ,,-.,,
Wells against Hughes. From the Husting'
Court OF Manchester. Affirmed, Judge faun
| tleroy delivering opinion. c,-
Matthias against Warrington. From Or
crit Court OF Nansemond Reversed Judg
Hinton delivering opinion. W.,
Iagoric and others against Dozier. W.T.
| ~ error and supersedeas awarded TO >uns
ment rendered by Corporation Court Oh Nor
ro,k on the 31st Of october. 1s92.
Grant against Fulton. Appeal ana super
sedeas awarded to DEGREES prcnounced u
,be Circuit Court Of Washington county, III
last an the Goth January. fso2.
Willard and wife against White: Wrut =
error refused to Judgment OF the Clrcul
Court of Tazewell county rendered Ut Au
gust term, 1892. . Anna.
Motley and others against Frank. Appea
refnsed 10 decree pronounced by the oircu'
| Cont OF Danville on September = io9S.
Rcnton against Commonwealth. r9''ne
argued by William +. Garnett ana H. u
Fsnntleroy. Esqs.. for plaintiff In error, an az
Major Il. Taylor Scott for common"ea''
and submitted. ,.u,.a comnan
- Awx1G