Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1899-08-24
A NOVEL CASE.
HCGreW'S Appeal Case Passed Upon.
WARRANT QUASHED and DISMISSED.
The Prisoner Discharged, and Counsel for
Prosecution Declare Purpose to Apply
to Circuit Court for MandumuS.

On the 4h of August, 1899, man by
the name of c. l.. McGrew, was arrested
at Pocahontas upon warrant sworn out
by w. j. Newenham, an employee of the
Southwest Virginia Improvement Compa-
ny. 1t was said that McGrew was the
agent Of a Western mining company, and
was trying to entice away the hands that
were working in The mines of the Southwest
Virginia Improvement Company. Nc
Grew was taken before P. P. Dillon, justice
of the peace, at Pocahontas on the Sth Of
August, and the justice fined him $1,000
and sent him to Jail for thirty days.
McGrew appealed the case to the county
court of Tazewell county, and subsequent
ly was'given bal by Judge Stuart.
On Tuesday the Trial of the appeal, un-
der the style of McGrew vs. The Common
wealth, came up in the county court. A
motion was made by counsel for McGrew
to quash and dismiss the warrant, upon
the ground that it was defective in sub
stance. The offense charged in the body of
the warrant is as follows:
THAT G. J.. Mc(irew, and a party TO
him (compiainanD unknown, on the day
of---lS99, in said county, did then and
there unlawfully and macliciou=ly consplre,
confederate and agree together to induce,
and did solicit, persuade and endeavor 10
induce the employees of the Southwest Vir-
ginia Improvement Company, who were
then engaged in mining coal for shipment
on the line of the Norfolk & Western
Railway, which coal was intended for pub
lie trade and business, to cease mining
coal for said company; and thereby injur-
iously and unlawfully affect the public
trade and business of the said company
and the public generally, these are, there
fore, etc."
The motion to quash and dismiss was
very eiaborately argued by counsel on
both sides Tuesday, and the court took
time tC consider thereof. On Yesterday at
II o'clock, after citing numerous authori-
ties, the court quashed the warrant and
dismissed the same, holding that no crimi-
nal ofense was charged in the warrant,
and that it was therefore defective in sub
stance. Thereupon the counsel for the
prosecution made motion to amend the
warrant. After this motion was argued
the court ogenuled, it Lolding, that as the
warrant was defective in substance and not
in form, there was no jurisdiction in the
county court TO amend.
Then counsel for prosecution moved the
court to examine witnesses for the purpose
of showing that an offense had been COM
mitted and to have new warrant issued.
This motion was also ovenuled, the court
holding that as the warrant was defective
IN substance the court had no jurisdiction
under the statute to issue new or orig
inal warrant ani put the party on trial.
To all Of these rulings of the court the
counsel for prosecution objected, and an
nounced their purpose CT applying to tie
circuit court for a mandamus TO compel
the county court to amend or issue new
warrant.
The case is one of first impression, and
will no doubt attract a good deal of atten-
tion. The prosecution is represented by
Barnes Gillespie, Commonwealth Attor-
ney land May, May &Smith. The defend
ant is represented by Chapman & GILES
pie and MIR. E. L. Greever.