Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Peas
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1834-07
Citations: 4 Leigh 692
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Commonwealth v. Peas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 1080–1080

Head Matter:
*The Commonwealth v. Peas.
July, 1834.
Indictment under Statute — Removing Slaves from County — Fatal Defects Indictment on the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. Ill, §30, for feloniously and fraudulently taking- and removing a slave from one county to another, with intent to defraud the owner and deprive him of the property: Held, fatally defective, after verdict, for want of an averment, that the slave was so taken and removed without'the consent of the owner.
Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Henrico. Peas was tried in that court, upon an indictment on the statute 1 Rev. Code, ch. Ill, \ 30, p. 428. The indictment charged, that the prisoner in the count}' of Henrico, “feloniously and fraudulently, did take possession of a negro boy named John, a slave, the property of W. Richardson, and did, then and there, felo-niously and fraudulently, remove the said slave beyond the limits of the said county of Henrico into the county of Prince George, with intent to defraud the said Richardson, the owner of the said slave, and to deprive him of the said slave, contrary to the form of the statute &c.” without expressly charging, that the prisoner so took: and removed the slave, without the consent of the owner. The jury found him guilty. Whereupon, he made a motion in arrest of judgment, because it was not averred in the indictment, that the slave was taken and carried from Henrico to Prince George, without the consent of Richardson, the owner; and so no criminal offence was charged in the indictment, and the same was not sufficient in law to warrant any judgment against him upon the verdict. And the court, with the consent of the prisoner adjourned to this court, the question, what judgment ought to be given upon the plea in arrest of judgment?
The opinion in this case, delivered by Judge IjOMAX, is reported in the Appendix to 2 Gratt. 629. Here also are collected all the cases citing the principal case, save Glass v. Com.. 33 Gratt. 832.
The statute enacts, that “whosoever shall carry, or cause to be carried, any slave or slaves out of this commonwealth, or shall carry, or cause to be carried, any slave or slaves out of any county or corporation within this commonwealth, into any other county or corporation within the same, without the consent of the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, or of the guardian of such owner or owners, if he. she or they be a minor or minors, and with intention to deprive such owner or owners oí such slave or slaves, shall be adjudged guilty of felony &c.”

Opinion:
*LOMAX, J.,
delivered the resolution of the court: That the omission of an averment in the indictment, that it was without the consent of the owner that the slave was removed or carried away, is a fatal defect, not cured by the verdict;, and, therefore, that it be certified to the circuit superiour court, that the judgment ought to be arrested.