Case Name: The Commonwealth v. George Offner
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1815-11
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Commonwealth v. George Offner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
*The Commonwealth v. George Offner.
Gaming — Defective Presentment — Judgment Confessed —Effect. —If a defendant confess judgment on a Presentment for gaming for the fine and costs, although the Presentment might have been defective on a special demurrer, yet that judgment ought not to be reversed on a writ of error.
The defendant was presented, with others, at the Corporation Court of Winchester in November, 1814, for unlawful gaming. The Presentment was thus : “We the Grand Jury for the corporation of Winchester do, this 4th day of November, 1814, present George Off-ner, (and others by name,) for unlawful gaming by betting at an unlawful game called Faro-bank in the house of E. R. Inn-keeper, being a public house in said corporation, within the jurisdiction, &c. and within three months last past, by the information of J. S. sworn to give evidence to the Grand Jury at their request. J. W. Miller, F. M.” On the next day the defendant confessed judgment for the fine and costs. At the succeeding Term of the Superior Court of Frederick county, he applied for a writ of error to the judgment, and assigned the following as" errors: 1. The Presentment of the Grand Jury is substantially defective in that it does not state that it was made upon oath, or in solemn form. 2. That the juror signing the Presentment does not sign himself as foreman. 3. That the Grand Jury who made the Presentment was an illegal Grand Jury, composed of only sixteen persons, one of whom, to wit: Edward Slater, was an alien and not qualified to be of the Grand Jury.
The Superior Court being: of opinion that the points of Raw arising' in the case ought to be settled by the General Court, adjourned the following questions to that Court : 1. Is it error in the said Presentment, that it is not stated therein on the said record, that it is made or presented on oath, or in solemn form ?
2. If it be error, can the defendant avail himself of it after confession of judgment, and payment of his fine and costs ?
See monographic note on “Gaming” appended to Neal v. Com., 22 Gratt. 917; monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674; mono-graphic note on “Judgments by Confession" appended to Richardson v. Jones, 12 Gratt. 63.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Court, by the unanimous opinion of the Judges present, doth decide that whatever might have been the law arising upon a special demurrer to the Presentment in the record of the said adjourned case set forth, if one had been filed, yet that the judgment rendered thereon upon the confession of the said George O finer, ought not to be reversed.