Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-09-13
MARY ALTERNATELY.

CThe Three "
| able to make motions and take proper
| bills of exception to many rulings or the
Court. which she is advised were erron-
cons and Injurious to her rights. No
| motion was made for a new trial for her,
and no motion was submitted TO arrest
the Judgment Of the Court. ana no nii
of exception, embracing the facts upon
which she was convicted, was taKen' anu
the record shows that the prisoner moved
the Court to set aside the verdict OF the
Jurv and grant her n new trial. which
motion. having been maturely considered
the Court refused to grant her new
trial and oyerruled said motion. rms
action was taken by the trial judge not
upon her motion, but Of his own motioh'
and while he thought proper TO enter 'he
said motion In her behalf and 10 over
rule the same, he did not deem IL me-
cessarv 70 grant her a bill OF exception
10 his action in everything the motion 1or
a new trial and TO certify the facts upon
which the verdict against her was lounu
by the Jury by the failure OF salu tilai
Judge TO note an exception TO MS rulihs
in declining TO grant her new trial anu
cay,ifv the facts as aforesaid your pc
titioner was left in the position as IL
no such motion had been made ana she
MANY errors upon the face Of said record,
come Of which your petitioner cannot
now avail herself Of under the technlcai
rules OF law, which by reason OF her
Ignorance aforesaid, and the absence Oh
counsel TO aid and advise her ABOUT ier
defence were not taken advantage Oh az
tho proper time before the said IRA,
court. The Incompetence OF the reco,n
shows that If she had been properly
aided and advised by counsel proper mo
lions and exceptions to the rulings Oh .,ie
Court would have been made, ana inc
aforesaid incompleteness OF the 1917
GOES TO show her ignorance ana 'iie gu
sence Of proper counsel 10 advise ana
Ola her about her defence, which pre-
,.on,ed her from having the fair ana
;mnartial trial, under due process OF law.
mbjcb ,s granted by the Constitution OF
,ha commonwealth and provided by law
Co. the protection of persons cnarsed
With crime. But said record does SNOW
srch sufficient and glarlng errors as
en,i,,e your petitioner to the VIII Oh
error which she prays for.
WE'RE NOT TRIED TOGETHER.
Tho first error assigned is that while
,,o,,r petitioner was Jointly indicted TOT
ia murder with one Mary Barnes ana
one pokev Barnes, she was tried sepa-
,ota,v without having elected 10 be so
,ried' or without having been severed
from the said Mary Barnes or fokey
Barnes. on the motion or the attorney
| for the Commonwealth. The statute ~
ouires (see Code Of Virginia. section 4OzD
| that where several persons are loin'iy
charged and held to be tried for felony
| tho clerk. by whom q venire facias Is re-
| ouired 10 be issued, shall issue wriI
| for a single venire for the trial OF all oil
| them Section 1929 Of said Code provides
.if a person. indicted Jointly with others
| for a felony. elect TO ba tried separately
| the venlre summoned for their trial may
| be used for him who is first tried, ana the
| Court shall award venire facias for the
trial Of the others. jointly or separately,
as they may elect" 1t may be argued
! that the Commonwealth had right to
| sever your petitioner from the people VINO
were jointly indicted with her, but your
| petitioner Is advised that the record
should show that fact. because the sta
tute makes specific provision for proce-
! dure under which such separate trial may
! be had when such severance Is made-to-
| wit: When such severance was MADE
your petitioner being first tried was enti-
! tied to be tried by jury selected from
a single venire summoned under venire
facias issued by the Clerk TO try them
| all. II does not appear by the record that
any venire facias was issued under the
| provisions Of section 1927. or Of any other
section or provision of law for the trial
Of your petitioner. Your petitioner can
not now take advantage of the failure OF
the record TO show that a venire facias
was issued. because II was not made q
ground OF exception In the trial court be-
| fore the jury was sworn In said court
| as required by our statute; but II II APP
pear by the record that no venire facias
was issued In this case, as required by
! law, then we can take advantage OF thai
/ failure, because the law does not re-
| quire that such failure shall be taker
ADVANTAGE Of I'm the trial court The re
cord In this case shows that your petit
TONER was tried by q jury taken from
two yenlre facias. issued by the Clerk
from a list furnished by the Judge. fol
the trial Of one X. Wilson and anothe
Willie Hurt. charged with felones In sale
| trial court Therefore, your petitioner II
advised that the failure OF the trial cour
to comply with the provisions and re
! Quirements of the statute for summon
ing and empanelling a jury to try he
for said murder Is not cured by the pro
visions OF section Sl5G, or the amend
ments thereto. Tho doctrine IL dist,nctl!
laid down by the Court of Appeals o
Virginia In a number OF cases, particular
| ly In the cases of Hall vs.. the Common
wealth, s0th Virginia Reports; Spr4geol
VS.. The Commonwealth Seth Virginia Re
ports; Myers VS.. the Commonwealth, 2Otl
volume S. E'rn Reporter.
The last case cited has hyn recentl
decided to the effect that any prescribing
involving deprivation of life or ifber'
must af:irmatively appear OF record. an
the accused Is entitled to a strict com
plinnce with oil Of the provisions OF Law
instituted for the conduct Of his trial
Your petitioner humbly submits that sec
tlon 2l66 OF the Code. and the amend
ments thereto. the object OF which Is I
cure Irregularities and defects in tn
conduct Of trials. unless the same ar
taken advantage Of at times specified Il
said sections. must be strictly con
strueJ. The object Of the law. both or