The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-12-13
aKANrEp 4 NEW TRIAL.
Judge isuchnnnm's Opinion Based
Opon The NNom.Secluskom of tic JurY.

P"1A 'he Soh-SeciuHtOn Oh the Jury.
Richmond Va. Dec. 12.-The Supreme
nI'r' ,riui oi Appeals to-day granted new
,,lals In the cases or Pokey Barnes
rS mary Abernathy and Solomon Mara5le
Mno were convicted or the murder OF
NirS, rs, Pollard, In Lunenburg county.
,r,l ne oi'iiilon was by Judge Buchanan
me opinion discusses ut length the
nenera' ,s,.. assignments in error nnd dis
,nisse" ,ii'. thcm all until 1t comca 20 the
,.' ',s'. oh this the Court holds that
Whcfe the record In IL capital case show I:
.n'l . the jury were adjourned from ole
uhE TO another II ought also TO show
'ii'lt upon such adjournment tIISy were
o"",,ni.led W. 1,, to The custody OF the prop
VI ohiccr With Instructions no. to
sneak TO them himself nor to allow any
oiie else 10 speak TO them touching the
.rilI OF the case In which they were
ehShsea' AS the record In this case falls
- snow ms Il new trial IL granted,
~ NJ ame point that the prisoners did
no, nave counsel the Court SAYS tha
uhhlGSs IL were shown that counsel was
uchieti' which Is not the case, the fact
'hal the prisoners did not have counsel
Wou,d not he ground for reversing i,idp-
,icill, nut IL lays down the doctrine
lhitt u IL the constitutional right or cy-
cry person accused of crime TO bnvo
co''hSri; mat II Is the duty Of the Court
70 ASK some lawyer 10 act as counsel
tor Il person arraigned who Is not able
10 employ counsel ana TINT 1t lis The
such an appeal N
Judge Reilly handed down u dissent
ihG opinion as TO the question of the
custody OF the jury. etc. He holds tho !.
whlie " IS necessary that the jury shoul.
he placed In the custody of the proper
officer. etc, the statement OF the r.. :
Us not u necessary part OF the record
TO sustain The Judgment IT should be
presumed. he says. that the trial court
proceeded I'm the usual way unless the
contrary appears by the record or was
made so to appear by some appro-
pirate proceeding -l9-
The other proceedings OF tho court
were: =
Norfolk and Western Railroad VS..
DouEherty: from the Circuit Court of
Norfolk. Reversed.
Seabonrd and Roanoke Railroad Conn
pahY vs.. Joyne3. administrators; from
the Circuit Court of the county OF
SOUTHAMPTON. Affirmed
Robertson vs.. Hardy's administrators.
Affirmed.
Cahoon, Treasurer, vs.Iron Gate Land
ana Improvement Company. Reversed.
Waverly Water Front Company ys.
White and others. Appeal and superse-
" Wilnatmisss Ss. Commonwealth and otb.ss L
ers; appeal and supersedens.
Lake VS.. Starke, trustee, and others.
. j.. 4 b. N
Wilkinson VS.. Harvey. Writ of error
refused
Gruhhs and others VS.. National Life
Insurance Company; from the Circuit
Court of Richmond. Writ Of error re-
fused
Grubbs and others VS.. Union Life In
snrance Company: from the Circuit
Court OF the city of Richmond. Writ of
error refused.
Robertson VS.. Smith and others: pass
ed until 142 is reached.
Rnstell and others VS.. Almond. Sub
mitted
Dnval vs. Chelf & CO. Argued.
Stearns,, executor, Vs. Richmond Pa
per Manufacturing Company. Argued.
7. G. Gordon and r. w. Christian for
appellee, and continued until to-mor-
row, when this case is concluded the
1ourt WIZ hear no further argument
during the term.
,. Hamilton Graves qualified to prac-
tice as counsel in the court.