The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-09-18

unon law in this country approves the
rule for the sake OF convenience and de-
cency as well as justice and doubts.
whether physical capaci,y In boys be
low fourteen is sufficiently frequent to
call for the abolition or a technical rule
so well adapted to prevent those par;ic-
ular statements OF indecent things which
wear awav the sense OF the refined
placed by the Maker IN the human mind
az a protector OF its virtue"
Tho convention of 1iI6 ordained that
the common law Of England and Acts
Of Parliament in aid thereof prior 20 the
fourth year OF James l., OF a general
nature. not local to that Kingdom and
the Acts Of the General Assembly OF
the colony now In force not in conflict
with the ordinances. ETC. OF the con-
vention. shall be the rule or decision and
considered as in full force until altered
by the legislative power Of the colony.
In 1872. 50 much OF this ordinance as
adopted the Acts OF Parliament made.
etc. prior 10 the fourth year OF James
l.. was repealed by the LEGISLATURE; the
rest Of tho ordinance has never been
repealed and remains Substantially the
law OF the State to this day. Va. Code.
Sec. ..
Though by the terms Of the ordinapce
Of lO6 the common law was adopted
without a qualification Ike that as to
the British statutes, IL has always been
considered that the same principles gov
ern it's adoption Such OF IT'S doctrines
and principles as are repugnant to the
nature OF our political system. or which
the circumstances OF our country render
inapplicable are either not In force here
or must be so modified as 20 adopt them
20 our condition. i fuckers Com. 3.
Coleman VS.. Moody h. and NJ. ~. and
other Virginia cases.
The legislature which Is the representa-
tive OF the sovereign power OF the peo-
pie has never changed the rule Of the
common law as 10 the matter under con-
sheraton and the presumption Is that
the climate Of our State and the habits
and conditions OF our people require no
change or modification Of The rule.
u Us significant. and tends % confirm
the presumption ffOm the inaction OF the
legislature, that for more than a hundred
years no Gaze drawing IN question tho
rule OF the common law as % the age
of puberty I'm males can be found in any
court Of last resort. The court knows Of
no climatic influence on our people. or
difference In their habits or condition.
that calls for modification OF our un-
written law as to the age o. puberty, even
II It had the power % make IT, The in,
convenience. if not absolute inability. OF
obtaining evidence OF the puberty Of
| hoy under fourteen and his capacity 20
commit this crime, except by the eA
posture OF his person, either voluntary or
compulsory. and the questionable right
OF the Commonwealth 10 obtain II by
compulsion. do not invite modification
OF the rule: while the unreliable and un-
satisfactory evidence OF the capacity 10
| commit the crime when so obtained and
adduced. and the statement and Discus
SION Of indecent things before the jury
would cause us 10 hesitate TO depart from
| O. long-established rule which has had the
sanction Of the wisest judges and under
| gone the test of years.
The circumstances under which the evil
dence 10 establish puberty in this case
was obtained together with IT'S nature ana
| doubtful character are we'll calculated
| TO deter any modification Of the common
| law, unless made necessary by the social
| condition of our people ana required for
| the protection OF virtue
Held. Tho accused being under four
| teen and conclusively presumed Incapable
OF the crime Of rape, 70 follows that he
was also incapable in law Of an attempt
to commit IT,
EJECTllENT.
| Ecusens VS.. Lawson. Anirmed. Opln-
| ion by Rely. j.
Held This case was submitted 70 the
! jury with correct instructions upon the
different phases Of the evidence which
was in great part obscure uncertain and
conflicting. Upon the consideration OF the
| whole evidence and under the instructions
a verdict was fairly rendered BY the jury
| in favor OF the defendants; the trial court
approved the finding; and this court bear
1 Ing in mind the principles which control
| the exercise Of its appellate powers In
! such cases. cannot disturb tho verdict
SUMMARY.
| BY Judge John w. Rlely-Reusens
| against lawson. from the Circuit Court
| of Carroll county. affirmed. Foster
! against the Commonwealth. from the
| Circuit Court of Roanoke county: re-
| yersed. Glsh's Executor against Jami-
| son from the Hastings Court Of Roam
| oke. reversed.
By Judge r.. TT. Cardwol-Augusta J..
| Ward against j. J. Schercr from the
| Circuit Court Of Roanoke county; re-
! vcrsed.
By Judge John a. Buchanan-James
| and others against Upton ana others re-
veIsing in part the decree Of the CIR
! cult Court OF NndlleseX county; Franklin
/ county against ellis and Johnscn. re-
| verslng the judgment Of tho Circuit
! Court OF Franklin county; same against
! Saunders. reversing the Judgment OF the
| Circuit Court of Franklin county. Lynch
| burg Perpetual Building ana Loan Asso-
| citation against Tellers and others. re-
versinr lu part the decree OF the Circuit
| Court of Roanoke city; Peoples Building
Loan and Savings Association against
Tinsley. reversing the decree OF the llust-
ings Court OF the city Of Radlord.
Bv judge George ". Harrison-New
south Building and Loan Association
AGAINST Reed. from The Hastings Court
| az the CITY of Roanoke. reversed IN part
ana affirmed in part. Liberty Savings
Bank against Otteryicv Land Company
from The the Circuit Court Of Bedford
City. affirmed: Clark and others against
/ Bank OF Abingdon. from the circuit Court
! ~ Washington county appeal; bond so
ar TO operate as superseoeas, Dond ''VD)
| Norfolk and Western Railway Company
against Old Dominion Baggage Com
panv. from the Circuit Court OF Lynch
burg. appeal bond 800; National Bank
of Alexandria against Walton, Wit OF err
ror 10 the Circuit Court Of Page county.
bond 500: Kimbail * Fink receivers,
against Borden. from the Circuit Court
of Warren county. bond 5000. Dulan
against smith. from the Circuit Court OF
Madison county. appeal bond 500; White
| law against Whitelaw from the Circuit
| Court OF Orange county, appeal and SUI
persedeas bond 500. Norfolk and West
| ern Railway Company against Board or
Public Works. from the Circuit Court OF
city Of Richmond writ Of error and SUI
persodeas. bond 500; Portsmouth Gas
| Company AGAINST Sanford, etc, from the
| Circuit Court of Portsmouth. writ Of err
| ror etc bond s211. Slaughter against