Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Reynolds
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1833-07
Citations: 4 Leigh 663
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Commonwealth v. Reynolds.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 1070–1070

Head Matter:
*The Commonwealth v. Reynolds.
July, 1833.
Criminal Law — Adjournment of Question of Law-Record. — If a cuestión of law in a criminal prosecution he adjourned from a circuit supe-riour court to this court, it must appear by the record, that it was so adjourned with the consent of the accused.
Grand Jury — Qualification — Freeholder — Who Is. — It seems, that one who has contracted by articles under seal to sell his land, but has not yet conveyed it by deed, and therefore still holds the legal title, is a freeholder uuaiified to serve on a grand jury.
Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Frederick. At May term 1832, the grand jury presented Reynolds, for a mis-demeanour. The usual -rule to shew cause why an information should not be filed, having been made and served on Reynolds, lie appeared at October term, and put in a plea in abatement, alleging, in substance, that the grand jury which found the presentment, was not duly constituted according to the statute in such case made and provided; for that M. Smith, one of the jurors, was not, at the time of the presentment, a freeholder, or the owner of any real estate or interest therein, save only the naked legal title of and in a certain parcel of land, which he had, previous to serving on the grand jury, bargained and sold to a certain J. Monroe, by written articles of agreement under the seals of the parties; which articles, set out in the plea, shewed, that Smith had covenanted to convey7 his land to Monroe, upon Monroe’s performing certain covenants on his part; but the plea did not allege, that Smith had actually conveyed the land, or even that Monroe was, as yet, entitled by the articles to demand a conveyance thereof. To this plea the1 attorney for the commonwealth demurred generally. Whereupon, the court adjourned to this court, the question, whether Smith, under the circumstances stated in the plea, was a properjuror? But it did not appear from the record, that thq case was so adjourned, with the assent of the defendant.
Criminal Law — Adjournment of Question of Law-Consent of Accused. — See Com. v. Garth, 3 Leigh 761.
Grand Jury — Qualification—Freeholder—Who Is.— The principal case was cited in Com. v. Burcher, 2 Rob. 829. and foot-note ; Com. v. Helmondollor, 4 Gratt. 539; State v. McAllister, 38 W. Va. 511, 18 S. E. Rep. 779 (dissenting opinion of Bkannon, J.). See further, monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Although the court would be of opinion, that Smith, under the circumstances stated, was a proper *juror, yet, as it does not appear that the question was adjourned to this court, with the consent of the accused, the case must be remanded to the circuit supe-riour court &c.