Richmond enquirer. [volume], November 26, 1830, Image 3

About Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
J n«M I »r lh* Ore-W« rh»rok«*<, to wtnl must
i<t«vi'«hly be Ihaitltlt. Nature tM«4rrrl«ii • barrier
tm'w«rn tin* whi*e mm an 1 the Indian, an 1 ihey run
anrfllve 'og*ther. The i«-»i*inn, lain, habit*. mm.
n«r* an l cuiioiu*, alt proclaim that the on* niur lie
superior in, «n<l govern th* olhsr la long at thev r*#»de
together, within the aaine territorial li*ili*. G-orgi*
h*a alrea ly esteuvleil tier law* over she Creek*; .md
the n*Et legi'laiure of thi* state, it they w ah to fur
ther the can e ol humanly, an I the view • ot their Pie*. !
IJont, mutt do w too. The K-iier.il novarnuirni can
not prevent 'hi*, without Itifrinicit ^ *tat-o right*; -ml it
i* a iluty which lhi«, aud every othor *taie, wli #ie ihe*
tinlortuna'e t>-li’g* re-i.le, owe* Irene!! for the pro
tectiou ot htr own rtiizmr. It *t>«*ins thou tint th
einigration of the Indian- beyi u I the Mi«*i*«i|>pl, i* th.
only iiiethoil to preserve tin* people from duel ami ut
ter extinction; an I «ve lordly cheri li the I o;m tl.it
era Ionic, every nation en I 'r be ot ludiina within the
precinc* of th**e Unit-d S *>*, %*i I follow the pru
dent example of the Choc'*So mote if be!
•• The Creature'a at ite dirty to irk ag'tinV—The
next time th* N In «llic.ncrr is pleas*.i to »
sentence, which may have appeared in thi* paper, we
hex them lo apeak more explicitly upon it* author-hip—
enu not to leave the impression, Irum it* vague insimia
tion, that it may have originated in thi* paper—and, per
hap*, with the Edi or.— I lie Inielligcucer, indeed,
speaks of the “R. E iqtiirer retailing the atale and tniacr
able jargon of obscure and ven d print*'’—and then of the
Enquirer being tire “ conduit of auch atulf a* the fol
lowing,” fitc. ko.—and then of the Enquirer'* “ allow
*Uf( it to be said” of Mr. K. King, kc. 5tr.—and then
thi* remark, “ The following is the remark in the En
quirer to which we alluded," See. &c. Now, why did
not the Intelligencer allow itself to say at once, that
the aentence in question was extracted from a Boston
paper—and thou, not from tho Editorial artirlc in the
Boston paper, but a communication to that paper—that
along with the remark on Mr. K , it contained some
fact* ami view* abont Mr. Randolph, which our readers
might wish to seo—ami that, without undertaking to
mutilate, or to assume the responsibility of every such
article, au Editor generally lay* it before (lie Public,
oi leaving them to judge for themselves. That Mr. King
was singularly obnoxious to the Republicans of the U.
S., cannot be questioned — Witness tho indignant feel
ing* produced by his extraordinary interposition in tho
ease of tho United Irishmen, who wished to seek an
asyl nn in the U. S.,trotu the oppressive visitations from
their own Government.
t • >* urmri, r. o. ua* loriniiia.e«i nw ilu i'i »» I. *|.
Cor of (he • Cdutnbia Telescope.” He It a gentlrmau
of fine talent* and-ol putilic apiri'J ami the Ion wf hi*
service! i< a aourco of (tre.it regret Tlir “Telescope”
Is taij to have beau transferred to side hand*.
MGCKf.BNItURU l OlJNTY^l.KCTIOM.
Iloni or kimunti—A. G. Knox* 390, VV. O. Goo<ln 33J_
U. albullon 131.—The county ii eiitillcil to two rcpretunlukives.
I T Thn interesting Report of Ilia Decisions of thn General
Court crowd! o'lt a variety of article*—anil, among them, tho < me
or Jsrrease* on tliu Mail Contract*, win h will certainly appear
on TuesJey.
LYTERESTlJYO D ECISIOJYS.
To rut BoiToai or tmk Kxquiaaa : —
With tlii* Note, you will rucoivu a sketch of tho Decisions i!ur.
lug tho late Term of the General Court. They ato pvra u* luify
u ooulJ well ho donn, condslotitly with tho uatur* of a new«papcr
report. Tho importance of *oino of the ilccieion* nia.le this courae
advisable. 11. the I'orjjory cases, especially in that of Spntcer,princi
ple* havo boon aeltloil which dmervo the particular notice of
Proftssiunal (ontlomcn. A question of coniidornhle intoroat i* all
so decided in lljrristn v». ICmiamon. That ca*o put* a coiutrue
tiou upon the insolvent law which i* believed to be entirely correct;
but it i* a construction which should b* known to tho I.<<g stature
in order that they mny iiitsrposo by statutory amendment, if they
should doom it expedient
It is duo to the Judges to say, that nono of the opinions are giv
en at length, in this Sketch. To make no accurate abridgment, is
as usuch ns has bean attempted in any esse. C. K.
a KJYE H.d L CO cn T.
DECISIONS AT NOVEMBER TERM—1830.
I'resent—Ju lies Stuart, Itroekenbroiigh, Johns-tan,
Smith,.1llen, Daniel, Semple, Parker, Upshur, Field',
■May and Lomax.
Jianiel Thomas, ^ Petition for writ of error to
v*. £ judgment of Superior Court of
The Comminutealth. y Hampshire.
The petitioner was indicted of felony tinder the set in
l R. C., page liS ch. Ill, sec. 30. The fir *t count of the
indictment charged (lie pe'iliouer with carrying 1 slaves
named Henry, Sandy, Pol ami Ilynt, the property of
Ephraim Dunn, and one other slave named (Jeorge,
tits property of Lturis I. Dunn, out of the coun‘y of
Hampshire, and out ol this Common wealth, into the
State of jlf ir i/I and, without tho consent ol the said own
ers, and with intention to injure and deprive the said
owners respectively of their -s itJ slaves. The potitioncr,
upon boiug set to the liar, moved the court to quash the'
indictment. His motion was overruled; and he except
ed to tho opinion. The bill of exceptions set forth the
record of ttie examining Court, and stated the ground ot
tho motion to bo, that (lie examination was not for the
satin offence, that was charged in the indictment.Upon
a comparison of tho record of the examining court,
with the first count of tho indictment, it appeared that
one ol the slaves was called Hariiet in the record, anil
Jfyat in the first count ot the indictment. To the bill
of exceptions, there was added hy tho judge, a state
ment of facts which rotated chielly to the title of (lie
•laves; but among other things it was said, that the
name of Hi/at was hy mistake inserted in the indict
ment instead of Harriet, and that upon tho trial which
afterwards too't place, tho court instructed the jury tint
a* to that slave it was not competent for them to find the
prisoner guilty. „
There was also another hill of exceptions filed to an
opinion given at the trial. The prisoner moved tho court
to instruct the jury, that “if they believed from the evi
donce, that the prisoner carried' the slaves out of the
Commonwealth with the intention of getting a reward,
and not with the intention nfdepriving the owners there
of of said slaves, they must find the prisoner not guil
ty.” The court gave the instruction, but added there
to these words: 4 mile** they should also believe from
the testimony, that the prisoner did eariy them out ot
the Common wealth, with (lie intention ol depriving the
owners of their said slaves until he should receive a
reward for their apprehension." And tho exception
was taken to (his addition to the instruction.
The jury found the prisoner guilty upon the first
count of the indictment They assessed a tine upon him,
and fixed his term of imprisonment in the Penitentiary
to he three years. Judgment was pronounced accord
ingly ; and to that judgment a writ ol error was asked.
wVotember Iff—Stuart J. reported the unanimous
opinion of tho c lur',* that the petition for a writ of crior
be rejected.
*Ju Ijcs D.viirl an I t.jurat not Hilling.
Krastus Poulson, i Adjourn rd case from tliu
v*. > Superior Court of *1ccu
The Justices of . Ire nnae.k. ) muck.
On tho tnjtion of Poulson, a rule w.»* made in Octo
ber, 1828, by the. Superior Court upon the justices of tlio
county court of Accomack,toshew emtu why a writ of
rnitri'l tmvif should not issue, to cmimHiiil them to rrs
toro Poulson to l»i•< rights and privilege* as a justice ol
the county court of Jlee.o:nnck\ which right* ami privi
lege were withheld from him. t he justice* made a re
turn to this rule; and th 're war an issue in fact joined
between the parties. O.i the trial of this issue thoju
ry found tho following fiefs: that Poulson left the com
monwealth about Octoher, IS!<>, with intent to take
up hi* permanent rc«idence elsewhere ; that he re
mained about nine months in the State of Kentucky,
hut did not establish any re*i Ipiico of a permanent cha
racter there or elsewhere, until hi* return to .'Irtomack
county ah nit July or August, 18 M, where he ha* resid
ed ever since. Thereupon, the Superior Court of -.He
comack a Ijourned to the fJetmr.il Court sundry ques
tions, an I among them, tho following: whether a mon
th mus ought to issue under the circumstances found by
the’verdict of the jury?
The question w** argu'l in writing hy Thomas 11.
Bailey as coun»el for Poulson.
November 17 — Ifpehur J. delivered tho opinion of
the court,* to Ilia following cfTict: tha hhere was no di‘
ference in principle between- this ca*e, and the case of
Chao vs. The Justices of Spoltsyfninitt in 2 Vs. Cas.
208; an ’ upon the authority of tli.it cue tho court were
unanimously of opinion, that the m mda nus ought not
to issue.
*Diiii/l J. not sitting.
The CommonwealIh, J Adjourned case fro«i
v*. > the Superior Court of
John S. ICtlsnn, Defdt. j Fairfax.
At May term, ISW.of Fairfax Superior Court,the de
fendant war presetted for retailing spirituous litpiorr
without Items': A rule war in ide returnable to Sep
tember term, 1810, to shew cause why an inform ition
should not be filed upon the presentment. On the re
turn of the rule, tho defendant for cause against It, al
leged that IF C II flutler one of tha fJrand jury who
male the preson'mmt, was at the lime of making (lie
same an ordinary keop’r. And thereupon the following
fact* were Agreed, to wit: that in January, 1880. th i
court of Fairfax county gran od to K. C Untie
the bro'her of the fJrand Juror objected to. a license fo
keep an ordinary, which lie mse expired at May term.
181). At the last mentioned term, the license was re*
n :we I to expire at the May term, in tho succeeding
y.jar. tdo'h of those licenses were regularly perfected
in the mmnv icq jrol hy law; and hy vi tu« thereof
a tavern was open'd and kep* from the llthof January.
1810. On th r 0 h of April, ISW, a J tint s Iveriisernent
of the said F C Buffer and of the said IF. C. D. Unt
il r w is nil dlihed, which stated tli *t they had opon*d a
house ot entertainment,whore thny were prepared loac
eommoda'e travellers and others; the advertisers re
commanded their house snd their aocommudatfon*; and
tiey both of thfia signed the advortidemcnf and gave It :|
'.'trculilwu. <*. B. Butin JiJ nut reside at the tav
ern. though ho on there occasionally. K. V. Butler
resiled there constantly un<l officiated as tavern-keeper.
U|»on this case agreed, sundry question* were adjourn
ed to the Gen.-rat Court, and among others, the follow
ing: who.her the (acts agreed were suihcient to prove
or constitute the said IK. C. B. Butler an ordinary keep
er within the meaning of the act of Assembly which
excludes ordinary .keepers trout serving on Grand Ju
ries ?
..Vo*-miter SO — Bruckenbrough J. reported the opin
ion of the Court,* that the tacts agreed were not sutfi
riant to constitute the said W V. 11. Bu'ler an ordluary
keeper within the meaning ot the act.
S.'.iat t J
The Cuinmanu'eullh J k „ . , .
V!l \ irvitil ciif from tho Su
Daniel Snider,D.-lt. $ •,*r,or C*»u,‘ «*» Pendleto .
At March term, 1830, ot Pendleton Superior Court,
the Grand Jury re'tirned sundry indictments. The it
cord *t>eciiie* «everj',iiid then concludes by saying that
the Grand Jury returned •• two oilier iodic ui-nis a
t airst surveyors ot mads true bills.** One ol these
indict in xite isagsinst the "surveyor ol that part or pre
riuct ol the public rosd on the Soutli Ink o* 'he South
bratirh "( the Potomac in the county ot Pendleton
wh'rh n ig-es by tJeorgr Puff- nbat ger’e Saw Millo-i
seld loik in tlie county aftiressil ** lint the indictment
no where s'eted iha name ol the tutveyor. Nut with
standi ig this oini.dou. a auiniiioiis wss i-«u»d against
Drtnirl Snider to answer the iinlirtment •• lotind a
gtiust him, lor i.ot keepi. g the road m repair ol which
he is the surveyor.” Snider appeared and lit d a
special plea, stating that "there is no' any record ot the
arid suppled indictment against him," to which plea
there was a g-urral replic.Uiou lla also fi'ed a gener
al duuurrrr to 'ho indicttneii'; and tlie A o ney |m
the Common wo ilth j nn»d in <lns demurrer. Where
upon the Superior C nut adjourntd the rase to <he G
oaral C*ur. lor its d -ci.iou upou th. follorting quo
1 t. la there a sufficient recor J ol the indictment It.
•his case being pie.,. uted ia Court by the Giand J mv
a* a true bill l 1
*21 Is the i idiciment good and sufficient in law *
•\ oeembrr 20, S/nitU 1 itrlivrnti the npiriion ot the
Court." The decision In il»n case of Betij. Oawood
2 Va. Cases 527 *a« considered by a majority of tlie
Judg-s as decisive, in lavour of the defendant, of ih
point that tbeie was not a sufficient finding ol ho in
dieiin*uI .hrtvuby die record. The other point was
also hi hi* !av ur. The gen ral rule is, that ihe name
of the pa.ly iidictad ought to bo hueiird. To thf
rute an exception i« mentioned in Z D ie. 657 and 2
!l«ui?A\ P (J cli. 25,*ec Ullu( au iiidiciinrnt thtt the
King's higli-way in such a pliee is in dsrav ilmusli
'h« default of (lie inliabuauts of nidi a town, ij gool,
without naming any person in cer'alu.” 1'iiis excep
t on ia allows I, because of the d ffi ul’y, if rot utter
•Iiidrsc icabi iiy of ascertaining a.J naming all ihs n
tnbi au eol lha town. In the case before ill- Court
tlierc was no reason why the genrr I rule .heuld no
p evail. And it.e Court was, llicrciore, unanimomlu
o opinion 'ha the indii'tineiti war insufficient, and ihe
ilemiirrrr ought to be *u»UltuJ.
* Ablaut Stuart i
Atmcr Marlin A silicn for writ of error to jndg.
v" ? ineot of the Supetior C-urt of.
/ tie Commonwealth ) Botetourt.
I he o«tittu"»r was convicted of Irlotty under the net
lit 1. H C p 578 cb. 154 <-r. I Hu conviction took
|.l ir» under the fast count of ha indie merit found a
him. That rtunt charg'd that the p titioner
w..h tu'ention to injur* at.«» defraud a r«r ain lVa>h.
vtglon Smith, did, on the 17ih of December, IS29, pa ,
hn'j 1 M~r *o I* »' and exchange, and cut**
• Of procure to bo offered to tie taxed and exchanged
to tlie raid n ashtngton Smith, a certain fslse, forged
and counterfeited note, purpirting to he a t ank no e of
tit- hank oi v irgii ia, (or tlie payment of twen y dol
I re, knowing (he raid note to he fal-e, forged and coun
t#r.ritiij. I h* J jiy arcrrtai' ed'fte prisoner’s t.-rtu f
Imprisonment in the Priiiteutiary to ba fen year*: and
sen'enre was pronounced arcordingly.
On the trial cf the indirtir.enl, the prisoner fi.'#d four
in a of exerp ions. lh'Ji/j/of these i« unimportant,
because the opinio i excepted to, elital to the first
count of the indictment; and ucou that count the pri
•omr was acquitted.
\ h- second bill 0r exceptions stales, that Hie prison
• r - c iun*«l ietr-duieJ Thomas Lrftwieh as a wines*
for Hie pr toner, ami after he was given up by the
hou use I lor ihe prisoner, the Atn.rocy for tfie Common
wealth, upon cross-examining the witness, asked him,
il the pri,oner had not parsed to him, a note said
)' V.f r1',''/•.«' ? *in8 * *h*",cr*d lhat he had, in
the lal. of 1829, passed a .-$5 note to him. which >vn said
to hr coii.n-rlvit on on* ot the Ihnks of Virginia, hut
coiillI u |t »*y on which; hat the pri oner afterwards
to jk It hark and gave list ai o her note loe it. The
t.oiinsel ler t..e prisoner ohj ctrd to this evidence, b*
cau*e the note was not produced, and because also lh“
w.-ii.M could rot state on which of Hie bank* It svas.
nut fie Court orerruled ths o ‘jectiou and permitted ilia
evidt nee o o to dja Jury.
Tli- thitd bill f exceptions states that testimony was
introduced, proving that the prisoner and Hum B.
Lewallen *re travelling in company; the witness saw
them togrt.ir, Lewallen ai die presence of the prison
er, proposed purchasing floras-; witness took up a horse
next morning ft ml found them togather; L> Wallen, in
the pre*e- <•- of the prisoner, bought (he time- ol wit
near St pa d hi ti in hank notes, some of which,in 'he oi In
in ot w tn a were coun erfei': 'his transaction ook
place a d.iy or tworj/ft.r the pasting of the not* l*r
valurh the p i.oner is indicted, hut during ih* same
trading ex pe li'io* ; 'he p-isoner, although present at I lie
time III company with Lewallen. said nothing except
tint when wi'uess insisted on having $G5 and’ Lcwal
len offered $61. pri.tner reinaiked he hardly ever saw
two men so lard at out a horse trade at to permit or.e
d d'ar to divide then ; then Lewallen, after a lit le hesi
tation, said fie would give die $65. and they traded; and
on am. h r Inrse I. ii g off red to Lewallen by witness,
Istwnllrn at lirat prcti.e! to r I ;>!>#• nom** i'owS: (<*«
b*. Letoalhn, ail ey w er • going to A'mstrAn :o ttmvt
a family) whetfi-r another horse wo ihi ha wanting, and
III I a : a' O-It tc the prisoner and arke I him if it would,
who a ns w red, prfltuMy an • thcr would be wanting,
Alter Ibis testimony,t!i • hank notes received by the wit
n*s* of \4ewall*n fur the florae, were off-red in evi
dence by t' f Attorney for the Commonwealth; and the
prisoner ol-jacted to (heir being admitted. Tin y pur
to.telfj bo notes on the Hank of Virginia, and tV
!-• n t permitted them to go the J ry ai circumstantial
evidence tending to prove the scienter.
1 ' •"’» ni/vif W l||r||*
l0ne * ” »* °n «**« n'iC t of tlia same .lay on winch wit
«jw tl.e pfisontr mid fcwallen, a young man,who
pyarlby (he nan.o of Lejtwich, was at the hou-e of
vvi'i»p-«. and, *s the witness nn li-rstood, ivn travclli: g
w. h LewallcHand lie prisoner Ti is young man wa
ih n inir .luce I a, a wi'nssM*. H . was called Mili/ott,
/*. H / provi)<i Ihdt h*< tVd« emii'oy-* J t>y
f'Uiner (o go with him to buy h»r<e«; i|,«t two
■lavs previous to the (rule made by Lewallen wi h the
° h-*r eilofia as el.lv« stated, Afilirnns the nfiiontr &.
Lewallen were all togelhor at noe Smith'll, where ho
Mdirou*, swapped. horar« wi'h Smith ami gave him
Smith, $r>0 to boa'; that he, Afilirnut, had no money j
"iat h 5 got from (he prisoner the money which he paid’
Smith, and the hors* was for the prisoner; that he,
Miliroua, can neither read nor write, anil did not know’
l» it the money was good ; nor doe, »10 j,noir ,,JB ..ri.
aouer kn-w it waaconnlerfeit. To the admission of all
ih.a evidence the prisoner objected: but his objection
was overrul'd, arid the testimony admitted.
Tito fourth bill of exception* state*, that the attorney
for the commonwealth introduced persons other than
bank officers, to say whether (lie note charged to be
counterfeit, was a counterfeit or genuine note; and the
prisoner objected to the admissibility ot such evidence.
Resides tlicao exceptions to opinions given at the tri
al, the record shews that the prisoner moved tho court
to set aside the vet diet on the ground of misconduct of
the jury in separating th mselves alter being sworn
and also on tho ground of the verdict being contrary to
evidence. These motions were overruled; and excep
tions filed lo the co in’s opinion. Tho trill of exceptions
contains the whole evidence given at tho trial; hut it occu
pies too largo a spare, to be Inserted iri this report It
will suffico tosav, that it includes contradictor,testimo
ny respecting the credibility of Mi irout; testimony
respecting the character of the prisoner; and tcstisiony
adverse to tho credit of a n lines* who deposed in favor
of that character.
Along with the exceptions, are tho affidavits that
were offered to prove misconduct in the jury. It an.
pears that immediately after the jury were sworn, hut
before any evidence had been introdueed. Ihre- jurors
left their box; one was called hack before ho cot out of
the house; (wo went out unattended by an officer, but
one of the deputy she, iff* perceiving them, pursued them
immediately, and brought them back to the box in about
one minute, without their being seen or heard to speak
or have communication with any body. V
Aovemher 17. The application for a writ of error
was argued in the General Court by /r jf> / ’
Ihn petitioner, and by the Attorney General for the Com'
monwealTh. %""11
.VuvmW %\ May J. delivered the epi„ion of ,h
court* The several par.'s of It will bo briefly notic.,1
an I In so doing, the order will t>« preserved, in which
the points are stated above. n
As to the seeond bill of exception* In a prosem.
■Ion f »r uttering conntc. lelt money or notes, evidence
that the accu-wd had about 'he samo period, pass*,,!
other counterfeit money or note* of the like kind, i« ad
missible as tending to prove the identtr. With this
view, the evidence excepted to by thi* bill, was proper
ly admitted. r r
Third b n of emeeytitnt, W* think it mey H« fairly
ded'j#*d foam 'he whole evidence *h»f the printer end
Ltr tout ten werejointly IttUretlul, inJ bij cniifvil«iKl(J
in passing counterfeit notes in tiio purcluie of hoiaes,
durtLg their expedition. If jd, there could be nostronger
evidence to prove that the notes mentioned !u the in
dictment were known l>y the prisoner to be couitteifelt,
than tho evidence objected to by this bill el exceptions,
to wit: the evidence respecting the counterfeit no e»
paid by LtwuHen\ which notes were of the same de
scription with that mentioned iu the ludlctmcut, and wete
passed upon the same journey
Fouttn bill of exceptions. It is not Indisprimh'e
that tlie p;oof ot the notes being counterfeit, should be
byanolhcerot the Hank. Yestimooy of other person
well acquainted with tho notes ol the Hank, Is legal and
competent evidence to be weighed by the Juiy.
.1t to the verdict being contrary to evidence. With
out admitting, in any manner, the propriety of such a
bill ol exceptions as that which sets forth the evidence I
In this case, we are all of opiulon that the verdict is fui* I
ly sustained by tho evidence us stated.
.1s to the separation of the Jury. No case has boon
cited and we have found none, iu which the separation
of the jury before any cvidouce has been introduced,
lias been held to be a sufficient cause to set aside their
verdict. In Coke, Foster and Blarkstone, It is said,
that after the jury ure sicorn and charged with the
prisoner, and after evidence has been given, the jury
cannot be discharged, or separated. In Burr's trial, it
bein^ impracticable to imp.iiincl a jury on the first day.
lour were sworn; mid the question being made whether
they should b.- confined, the court held that it w as un
necessary. We are not disposed to increase tho rigour
which has prevailed upon this subject.
It is proper to ad4, th it while a majority of the Judge* 1
decided this part of the c iso, upon (he distinction above
taken between a separation before, and a separation af
ter, the evidence lias been introduced, there were others
who, neither altirming nor denying the correctness of
the piinciplo adopted by tire majority, placed their de
cision on the ground, that tiie possi! ility ot auy tamper
ing with tlie jury, under the circumstances ot this case,
was too romoto to call tor a new trial.
Ttie petition for a writ of error was, therefore, re
jected.
♦Ab.ent Stuart J.
Samuel D. Spencer,} Petition lor writ of error to
v'*- > Judgment of the Superior Court
The Commonwealth. } of Botetourt.
The indictment against the petitioner contained two
counts; and he was convicted under the second. That
count charged, that on the 10th day of March, 1830, the
petitioner did talsely make, forge aud counterfeit, and
did cause and procure to bo Ulscly tnadc, forged and
counterfeited, and did willingly aid and assist jn falsely
making, forging aud counterfeiting, a note purporting to
be a bank note ol the Farmers’ Hank ol Vitgirda, lor
tho payment ol Ion dollars, with lutentiou (o injure and
defraud ^the President, Directors it Company of the
r armors* Oink ol Virginia. Tito Jury ascertained the
prisoner’s term ol imprisonment in (ho Penitentiary to be
ten years; and sentence was pronounced accordingly.
On tile trial, the ptisoner filed three bills of ex
ceptions. The first hdl states that the attorney ior the
commonwealth proved that the pilsouer was, in the
month of November, 1S!9, seen in ti e county o! Vote
tourt, in company with Oeccn B. I.ewallen at a pub ic
house, and that the prisoner represented himsell as n
Doctor Davis, a hog-drover, from Kentucky, and offer
ed to shave a $100 United States' note, but did not she w
it, and paid for repaii ing his watch, in goo 1 money (37 1-2
cents) and enquired (lie w ay to the If g Lick, in said
county; that ho was seen on the second day of March
court, 1830, at a public house with one Epps, in suij
county, and liie prisoner represented himself as a Doc
tor Daois, from Tennessee, who said lie was going to
Aashville; that a warrant was then issued against him
to apprehend him for forgery, mid ha was pui sued until
the witness supposed lie had left the comity; dial about
t welve or fifteen days sifter, the prisoner wai |>.i9»int;
through the town of Fincastlc, in «aid county, on horse
bark; that he wat arrested ami taken from hi* horse, ami
on his saddle-bags being examined, there were found in
them thirty-five hundred and odd dollars in counterfeit
money, inclu dug the notes lor the lorgery of which lie
was indicted, a number of plates, from one of which
tlie ten dollar note in the indictment mentioned, and ma
ny others oi the same denomination, were obviously
struck, (hut there was no plate for $20 notes found in
his poiscssion,) two canisters of ink,one ol w hich was not
foil, blank papers about the size of a bank note, one ol
winch, had a slight impression of a bank note on it, part
of tbo notes were ini per feet,some ol them unsi<»ned,others
completed, some erased, a five dollar United Stales’ note
with the engraving in part erased and the signatures
lelt.a $20 United States note plate, a plate with broker’s
marks engraved on it, and some notes with hioker*
marks on them obviously made Irom the plate; prisouc
had spine good money with him. When lie was ox uii
h* represented that he stopped at a house i,
Campbell county, and went to the stable to find hit
horse ; when he pulled down a bundle ol lodifcr, ths
the notes fell out, and he took them to the master of tin
house, who said lie knew nothing of them, that lie car
ried them to Philadelphia and back with him; he re
presented Die ink to he blacking; there was no evidelici
that he had been out ot tho county from the time be wa
seen m November, and there was no evidence that he
resided in said county, or that ho was over in tin
county except tlia times abnvo stated; prisoner provor
that a witness, introduced by him, had, in tho month o
October, 1829, moved the mother of the prisoner from
Eranklin county, Virginia, to the State of Kentucky
prisoner went with witness to Kentucky, where they me'
with Lewallen; witness returned in December, bu
does not know when prisoner returned; ptisoner inlro
diiccd another witness who proved that he had sen
notes made on a hank in Ire'anJ, and they used a pres
weig.iing about 500 pounds; and this was all the ovi
dence in (lie case. Whereupon, Die attoiney for tin
commonwealth moved the court to instruct the jury tlia
the circumstances above set forth, were proper evidt nc
far the jury, and were prima facie evidence that tin
torgery was committed in the county ol Botetourt, am
proper for their consideration. The court gave tlie in
struchon; and the prisoner excepted to tlie opinion.
I lie second hilt of exceptions states, that the con rite
lor the prisoner, moved Die court lo instruct tlie jun
that if they are not satisfied from the evidence, that tin
prisoner did falsely make, forge and counterfeit, or di<
cause and procure lo he falsely made, forged and conn
tcrfeited, or did willingly aid and assist, being present
at the forgery of the two note*, or one ol Diem, in Du
indictment mentioned, they ought to find a verdict fo
the prisoner. Tlie court instructed the jury, that ol
though they ought to he satisfied that the prisoner eidic
did forge and counterfeit, or willingly aid & assist in tin
falsely making, forging and counterfeiting, or was ore
sent at the falsely making, forging and counterfeilini
the note* in the indictment mentioned, yet that tlie pri
soner being in the possession of the note* in the indict
mont mentioned, as well as the other notes and plate
and ink found in his possession, was prima facie evi
deuce of his having lorgod, or assisted m forging o
those m the indinctment mentioned. To the latter par
of thi* instruction, the prisoner excepted.
1 he third bill of exceptions siatos, that the prlsonc
moved the court to instruct the jury that if they wen
nut satisfied from tho evidence that Die forgery charge,
in the Indictment, was coi.unitted in the county of Bate
tourt, it was their du'v to render a verdict ol acquittal
Hie court instructed the jury that they ought to be s i
tisfied (ha* the falsely making and forging, or willing!'
assisting in the falsely making, forging and rounferlei
fug was committed in tb* county of Botetourt; hut tha
Die prisoner being first found in Du* possession or flu
other notes, plates, ink and paper, (mentioned in am.fhr
bill of exceptions) in the county of Botetourt, wa
f r\m?.re, cvj,,|,M,re of frrt "I iiis having counter
felledI them in Botetourt. To the latter part of this in
stniclion .the prisoner excepted.
November 19. The application for a wr't of error
was argued before the General Court, by F. IV. Itist/n,
Tor the petitioner, and by the Atlanta Central lor Ihi
Commonwealth.
f . — * /•" *' • urn
(n®/ °,,r*** ^ (no following effect:
The most serious (lifTicullv which the court has had
to enrollnter in this cane, ha* grown out of the phrase
ol°eyof ;he hill, of exception . Pome of the Judge*
tlrnk that the exprcs-.b.n ‘'the prisoner being in the pos
session of the note, in the Indictment mentioned,” Ur.
,n 'he second hillof cxcentiong, anil the expression “the
prisoner being first fouml in the po«* *<».«§ ion of Ihe other
note1*, in the third hill of exerptions, ought to he
Construed a, an instruction that thr*r fact* were prop.
er, and consequently, that the court must he regarded as
having e ncroached upon Ih© province of the jury. A
majority, however, think that the Judge meant to sub
fiiit those facts hypothetically, and that ihe jury must
have ao understood him. .
So constru ng the bills of exseptions, the first question
that is presented, is, whether the possession of forged
hank note*, together wiih the plates and other imple
ment* used in forging (hem, Is prirna fat.it evidence
that the person so found in possession, did feloniously
forge them?
We can see no reason why (he possession of forged
note* and th • plates and other instruments used in forg
ing them, should not create as strong a presumption that
the person so found in possession is the actual forger,
as the possession of stolen goods creates, that th# per
aon found in possession of them, is (he aefual thief. In
the case before us, the inference Is atill farther justified
hY (h® f*ft# that the pri«oofr waa found In po^fuion not
only of the not* described In the indictment, and of thr
plate with which It was made, but also of a large a
mOUIlt n f rti hnr f!e»s»r*mA nets* J i1. ^ .Ui.e a 1 _ r
* v nirn ii wiij mine, put arao ot a largo a
mount ef oth«r forged notes and Ihe platea used In forg.
m* them. Apart from all direct authority, we consider
.k ", ,m,n aumrect autnerity, we consider
the principle reasonable In itself, and str ctly within th«
analogy afforded by other well established cases of pr,.
sureptive proof. We, therefore, think the Instrcetiar
entirely correct.
Ano her question is presented, whether sorb posse*.
«©« Is that aMr* nrntiooed, Is pri-ma ftttit evidence
that the fix-fi ry w a< committed m the place niwic the
[itn^wslon «•( first dt 'covered?
lo the ca<e of the United States vs. Britton, 2 Ma
► on, 470, Judg» .vto/y »iuing iu llie Federal Circuit
Court, decided that a t»ill drawn in Philadelphia iu fa
vour of a person then in Philadelphia, but presented
in au altered and forged atate in Massachusetts, should
be presumed, in the absence of all proof to the contra
ry, in have been altoied end forged In Massachusetts.
This decision it not opposed. If It bo not supported, by
thfe English cases. These c.i e.s no where disaffirm
the principle, that the possesion of forged instrument* |
U pntnajacit or presumptive proof, that t?ie forgery]
wan committed at the piac« where such possession was
first made known; but in each particular cite, the de
cision in favour ol tho accused, rests upon the ground
tiiat there waa sufficient counter-proof to remove the
presumption.
A majority of »he court are, therefore, of opinion that
th* petition for a writ of error bo rejected. In this o
pinion Judge* Johnston, Semple, May awl Lomax do
not concur. Those Judges place a different construc
tion upon tho bills of exceptions from tint which the
majority put upon them. It those Judges had constru
ed the exceptions as submitting the facts hypothetically,
Judge Johnston would have concurred with tho majori
ty, and Judge Lomax would have so far concurred as to
consider the possession, ko. pH mu facia evidence ol
aiding an * assisting. Judges May and Semple were of
opinion, that although tho evidence would have been
legal and proper lor the consideration of the jut y, and
that they might well have deduced therefrom the Infer
ence of the prisoner’s guilt, vet that it was error to in
str uct them that it was prima facie evidence thereof.
' J'j 1 ju« Xturirt taJ Parker ool luting.
Thomas IF. Brown, i Petition for writ of error Jo
v1- > judgment of the Superior CourJ
Th>- Commonwealth, l of A'anatcha.
I first count ot the indictment against die pc'ition
or charges that ha «Jid ••ciuise and orocnre to he oflered
to he paused to a certain Edmund Perryman three eer
talo false, forced and counterfeited hank notea of the
IJank ot the United States, at their office ol discount and
depoalte at .Yew Orhans;" the tcnour of the countei
teited notes is then set out iri full; Ihe Intent I* stated to
bu “to injure and defraud the said Edmund Perrwnan
and the sci-nter it well charced.
Tho second count charges that the petitioner did pass
to ;i slave named .Vitus belonging to a certain John D.
Lews, thicn other counterfeited notes, the tenour of
which Is set out. with Intent to Injuro and defraud the
I resident. directors and Company of the Bank of the
~ Vi, ‘ ,a es’ laying the Scienter in the usual manner.
I he petitioner, upon helng set to the bar, moved the
court to quash huh coun*< of the indictment. His
motion w as overruled; and hu then pleaded not *milty
and w as put upon his trial. °
It appeared by a bill of exceptions, that on Impaniull*
mg trie jury, a juror was called, who being examined
on oath, stated that he had expressed an opinion on the
circumstances, ns he had heard them narrated in the
country, hut that he had not heard any of the evldi ncc
given on the examination, or conversed with any of the
witnesses °r parties In the cause, and that ho did not
think the opinion so form'd would have any influence
upon liis mind in trying* !.* case Tnie jurorV e prisot.er
challenged lor cause. His challenge tor cause was u
vei ruled; and he then made lire of his prercn.pl'.i y cha'
lenge. 1
The jury who were irnpannclled, found tho prisi ncr
guilty, i'rid a'certnlncd his term of Imprisonment in the
penitentiary to be ton years.
1 he prisoner made a motion for a new trial, which
wa« overruled. And the Judge then made a statement
ol the facts appearing in evidence on the trial, which
w as ordered to be made a part of the record, and to a
vail the prisoner as much as if the same had been set
out in a hill of exceptions. It appear, d that the Com
monwealth produced a witness named Ross, who*e evi
denee lully supported the verdict, If ho was believed
Me was an accomplice with the prisoner; anJ the testi
motiy winch he gave upon tho trial varied from that
which he had given before the examining comt. The
other evidence, exclusive of that of Ros«, was clearly
insufficient to warrant the conviction. And the motion
lor die new trial was made upon the ground ol the in*
competency or want of credibility of Ross.
After overruling the motion for a new trial, tho Judge
pronounced sentence according to the verdict; and now
an application wa« made to the General Court for a wrii
ol ei ror to his judgment.
.Yovember 18.—1 he application was argued hv John
son tor the petitioner, and opposed by the .dttomru
General for trio Commonwealth. ^
It was insisted that the fir-i count in the indictmen
was insufficient, because it did not state whom the pi is
oner caused oi procured to offer the note, or how, or ii
what manner, or by what //irons, he caused or procure.
Hie same to be offered to be posted.
It was objected that tho second count was dsCtrlivo
because the Intent was laid fo defraud the Bank. 1
was insisted that the intent must he to defraud the per
son to whom (he note is offered; and when it is offered tc
a servant or agent, it should be laid to delraud the mas
ter or principal.
Sprovce’s case. 2 Va ,Cas. 375. was chiefly relied on
lo sustain the objection to the juror. The new dial ii
w „ insist, d.ought to he gran ed. when it appeared thai
the verdict w ad obtained upon the testimony o! a perjur
ed witness. * r J
uvemoer -t—Jirockenbrough, /.delivered the o
piinon of the court.*
1 he ohjectlon to the first count cannot be sustained
In Ram left’s ease, 2 Va Cos. 356, the indictment chare
ed that the defendants “did falsely make, forge and conn
tcrteit, and dkl cause and procure to be. falsely made
lorged and counterfeited, and did willingly act arid assist
in the false making, foiging & countcrleiiing” It pur
sued the words of the statute; and it was held to be suffi
cient In Huff,nan's case, t) Hand. 689. the objection
was taken that the count did not set forth the person or
pci sons whom the prisoner caused or procured to forge
the instrument, and those with whom he willingly acted
and a-sisted in the forgerj ; but the objection did not pre
vsil. In that, ns in the prureding case, the court reli
ed very much upon the torn s of indictments to be found
in JtrcrwAd and Chi tty up n statutes similar to our
own. The authority of these form- is strongly support
ed by the case ol The vs. Holden and others «
I aunt 334. also reported in 2 I.euh 1019, and Russell
and Ryan l.,|. In that case the form ol tho indictment
wa-< objected to before the twelve Judges; and they
uammously decided it to be sufficiently certain. It has
also been decided that it is not necessary to set forth the
particular manner, by which the fraud was effected
that being mere matter of evidence, *3 Chi tty ltM.V
quoting 1 Leach 77. In the case now before the court*
the tenour ol the notes is fully set out, the peison to
whom they were offered t0 bo passed is stated, and the
intent to do fraud and injure a particular Individual is al
so charged. W e are onanimously of opinion that the
first count is good and sufficient.
Nor can the objection to the second count be sustain
ed I he count does not lay an intent which was impos
sible. I be natural and inevitable consequence of pass
ing counterfeit notes is to Injure the institution whose
notes are so counterfeited. Its interest is affected; its
credit impaired. I he man who passes them, knowing
them to bo counterfeit, is presumed to intend that which
ts the necessary consequence of his passing them; and
lie. therefore,comes within the provision of the statute.
tv <7771 m H ,W °f',,C 'UW- authori
ly o the hngl.sh Judges in Rex vs Mary Matador a,
u*sell and HyaiiMI. We consider the second count
good as well as the first; and in tiffs opinion wo are also
unnmmnu,f. 1
The csseot Sprouts, in 2 Va. Cas. 975, wl.ich is re
bed upon in support of the ohjeclion to the juror, we
consoler to be different from tiffs. Here (be juror did
not express a decided This ea.e is more like
that of Pollard in 5 Rand., 658. The court is, H.ere
fore, of opimon, that the bill of ex e,,ii(„,s shews noer
d^sscnT r0m ' ' " °p,,,fon Semple and t'pshur
In /V./’s cse, 2 Va. Pas. mo, thi. court gave a very
decided opinion on the competency of an accomplice as a
* itness at any time before his conviction. The nnestic
... - think, may h. I,,| ,h, .Tm"n"
' ,* 'e,[''ry un,,fr *,,e siiperintcndsncc of the Jude
who tries the rase. f
In this esse, the credit of the witness has been a
formed hv the jury, and sanctioned by the judge wl
c^nri !!!'! J** ",n' T1’1* C"0rt *i,,inS! M*n
e. nrf, and knowing nothing of the evidence or the wi
nes«, except ns it appears on paper, feels itself very ir
competent to decide on the credibility of the lei
timony. Unless it were Irresisf My rlear that the rot
viction was wrong, tiffs court would no! disturb It W
are unanimously of opinion that no new trial should b
granted; and we give this op nion without deriding „
the propriety of (h(. j„(l^ ,lp|ow „Mi „|e “
which were given on the trial. 1
jrc!ivf pe,'*'on ^or •* wrl* ermr, was consequently r»
ftftuirtJ.
Rrttthtn ffamgon,
,\
m#* fr*m Ann,
C*tot I t»( Norfolk.
4r*h*r Km ns, re m nnti oihrrg%
Jvt'ifrg nf .Ynrfolk rs>v>tfy. ,
_ ' •r|»« I'M, PTirritnn hr •• -r».f.‘isii f in «i lias
rrs.eirtsain -h. S,..,„y O.S,. ,.f AWjVt /.. It-.. he .
. 'finrit mth- J,il nf !|-,t i..|in)r f«r • a It mhoh tv nn*
/' ; ,K*' I*' »persre»l hrfn <- Kmmeri/in an i .Vst*, is. j
'»>, «nf rni»4 Ills. Ihr oslh of trsn're- ft n,.,M he « In In He,
,? h'm- ""'rt. (a-T letmH, no.wilh.lsclin* h. had mo ot -d -
'** r*1"uit«i of ti,. „(,in reltUmt- the n t-e snif-ehr.hdr ■ ,
1 •' sAfrws-^i sp-e.r-d he ir a rw*,-,i
'! *; ’"f'd I k* e..nr.y Me, «h» .< r„y,d f,
"Y* • ' <m4rmiu, to rn- n.t l|>y J rUtet sSnonittsf <h* cs.h
flits as. t-"ifSifi.tr ms/* .hr Jmlirti In «h*w rsi.,r «
• » maedmis Ui-sM ar» b-«r. Tmrsmi*n s •' R’esS msj. , f„
i • '»i it •< (S,|- r.M’ n trf nr. a.,, ns .ir. Mner\t<m i»s« ih». u
errs nf rpirl*-, fm»r h i fe ds.fiea Ir intfnr, u
htl he s>> in IV ••fHI'IS <d pr..-i sl p fshirh Cush. k
I'tei ImM.iI is hh «liffslf hvf til ml m. nfmnrd i h„
Us.nr.ls. hrfcrl < no pfnprr«p.-* Asl thy pin e.rdrif
ths rs<f» M !h»v tppssrsd h«t«f* ttlfm. tnneMrs'hi# m.'tee 1
(Sfeff fw» ja-'ISf. tt.Jri i«n.r l*'».S,r»flr..f>g • * list if sns
«*n ami .\ua.i.
■ cv..uwi 1.» .d, um.j
Iw tbt UtAtni C uui ( th* tv»llvfitu£ .
I.t. lf a pruoori i. brou»Lt Wmi too M.jitial.., io ord.r to
(>k« li t uajb of iu.. T.n.y,«oJ iffer. t„ t k«mhHlli,ii.d to ton
to* and deliver the r’op.ity, ir.l «mj |,»,,„nal. contained iu hi.
•ibc.'ule, ami to coui|.-7 with ttia other of it,. l.te,-b...
lit. M.g'.l.atei a dim. non to a.imini.(tr ih. oath or nwi. no the
round (bat to./ litre i< .ton tub.lor., fo in t.„ «.|»,»e<Mi.
out under oath or frvui (Jit tiaiiwno> ol mturne., that thi i.uicLtr
n«« tint included all hit y toprf j iu laid irbrtJult f
2> <*. U .n the return of (ht Juilurt «bvw mm h • **•# ,< librveUi
In ® further prccittlinff vn the r»a*itam* >1
3! Will* muniht/rtk f lie If*, m Iht &ip«r»ui Cokrt lo count* mi*
, rl *• tf i». U ftdnmuler »U* reih i»f ia»a vr»n, kml du
, r<# *hf rft o If —tue aS iverior C iMti h.frr# *i pud itte'f to
•U.'» . i»t«r i. « r r
Ao*t *i| of »r ^itni cm anr ur on th# rrri t
• eremite* Pit'ktc J. .?*!•*< real the nj iimo of the C. urt.
•'*•= ui.j ti y oi itttii ol w|>ioicu,'bet the HI tgtutto'ei
• Cl CttlnttMi.it mit(; ,j,# qtieallufi, h e* tiO d • ireth-n to •«!
»*HM* rr, or rawt t • itutrr ti e oeilt of i.»olf%r« j hut art bwund
m \L° ^**c^*,rKt ‘he f*f *• n#r. Tht c«uifi(Kbi ia*n«a«4 by
' l,#' ' ** l^r deMoi tl al! de'it *r in * »» he.’i# e of till r»Utf
• ’ "i° * T*,)r •o!#iori‘»uJ compielillint•* «lia*acter. «ehu I.
f -1 4 1** uiidfr the diraCtkita of the Court, or pt»*
• nl rtli ti Iuch 0,1,1 *1 lu.rlecLCf .hill he t»k n.fteoW.r
, ivJm.lVn' *hT **t%t‘**} cuU.pcd n ntfA scbtiu.lt, 4i»d
I I S ' ":, Vi*.! ** '* 'll' Bbi’.ir And wu cuwplj
dl.tha-«^ W t,t"d'“t"!* • .•"‘"••r '• •mittod t • b>> »«treiil *t
''hvHul' do., nottPotaioall th* prop*.ty of (h.
mi. nn but hofiamtulrut y c°nc,aU an. Pa,t of it he it liable to
n^«PJ|0, i r 0 ?’*"’• U*“ ’M act liar nr*r*d**l, that
0. tonly all ..l.to loo'ain... ,u tbr . Ii.dutr l.«> af/aitu ulu'i
M *?'"'* ^ ^ P’"1*0"*’-’ ‘ h« Wll.d ...
-I (••« ci.idiw. TU. ... ih. .u.,.1,
a"Voh| !h* “* '"UrP0*‘d 10 "'•u a a coo.pl,.. <e, or \ua.d
I tht Ju'tlc.r (ail ausuir..n(. tb* liau1, ao.l o . that., un.lt. (u.r
1“ a t.ji.u Iter Ihn uain .. th., bar. .ton. ,n thi. r..., ,Vtjr ,‘lt ,.j
" fit I, and Ihopiituair mutt i« niam m Jallur.tilih.il .ctu.l.l lr,
ai. fi.J; aod (bo. tfe. Su..(k.u of l.h.ny
“'“'i *• maiir t-.o.p.nn uj uo tht vpioior. ol (no m.l w,
cnoot bilit ri llii< .deb »». thr intrittion r.f ih- L'ci.laluir o. t> »t
'*•* worda it hai uitd, are fait 7 ii..c.itib:« uf .uth a ronit.uniui.
1. t u*-i It 11 ati.M of I tin i<«a, it uiay b. piop.rto r. (♦. lo a bill u.„.o
tlm iu> j.t|, winch n*f iM.o.luCf.l into lli> R.u-e of U.!.(alt., du'
ring 1 „ 0( ISid-'r. Tin diut.i. and •• p|N.|i.rig('ttiai
n II,I.livn ml. t.H k ,t f r iiabt.it. that tl». n «.n atl'int trd to h.
c firit.l. had not bof.iro o.en gireu to th. Jti-tirn or lh« O nil. ]i
"" •* located and oppuitd up-u that a.iiioiption; .n I n tMitl i'ai.H
• nr 1 hr tal.giiaiil# it p, 1 I dcit acaiuit tb. at u.» of ih■ pnw.r, it ....
tij.r.tv.j t.y ih. L*|i»litur., in K.in-qu.u. », 11 n*»||.» <|t u| |h,
iniwriii 11. <b 1 Inc Minttun. of Ihr H<« w.r* alrraily .uthcir nt.
I <1 ih. Jr.'ooj q’l.it, >o, no imau, that thr ictur 1 ul th. Juiticai
II in', mciiut tn ibctata ihnu from fuitl .r orurrrJirri uo thi tna.i
To lii. tAir-J, 'bat a mjndumu) t'.ei lie front the Superior Court
, Juttu*., to > ompei thm. to edtniiiili r lb. oath of io
iiultr ti y. and_•»•« ht.,e the |»'iui*r ; fur atbith «« ref i to fh» <.,e
01 f vm. ft f\akrf*zt 12 Y« Cj. V
A «l i*» flip Ian, ihti 0 « tfu|M iinr viul i&ould avtaxi t per* mrto
rtdndcnus io *b • c**p, unit** it »pp»»r (but the fiil-oit htl
»«»••• jr iilici »t£» .J If vin cu»(< t\y.
Ie Ibie docitiou uior j.i ,'|t« concur. Judgai SliHirt, Johnston and
i/pshur lit rn(. %
haac Milan anj oLhtrs, ) , ,
’jouro .1 cur frurs lb. Superior Com!
... 1 ? A J jour i
Joseph Oii tni So olhtrs ) ul Uol.tou t.
Hn. wa. an»p,.t«| fio.u an order nf the eoun y roart of
toart. r.lui.itr i,. a mil I- r.c.rd a de.J of ciiatinn. The
q licit to n »Ki. h th. Siiprnor Oouit te.arded at hi tote it, «... tali..
lUtf lb. dead ah.ul-i b. admitted to rrcunl, unun pr<-of of ibr I im).
Hidingtl a "iln p »ha tea-dead, mi l tli. i « tr.itloe ..T t wilm i
M.'d.lie oit °f tb.Stit. U ,h„ q.j.„„.„ „ j,,.
“"it’. »8mr '« C,'UM " ,hr c*** ’‘h O'U.ia! Uouil.
-•oiemhfr 8i.—Hrvciealroti^h J. lepntiad >h • opinion ol th.
I- 'J 1 I it* In. S.ipoc.r Con t i.l law bat n ■ jn it.l.rli io It
tal in lint cat. ; ami b • appeal >h iwtd h> .'itm « .d ly that Court.
iiV,*.i ‘ too* r*J improper to .outer th- qo.ttiuu a.ijauto
« 1 by tli taid o C.Utt. ‘
f A'.teul. Judge. i’tajif, and F.tlL
J.'rtan.Ur Stephen i „
fi. ( * •«MoH fur wilof fffof |y *)udv’Qj«iftt '*f
The Comenomctolth. ) Suprtiot Cwu.t «.f tfc.Aeb v.
In. |..liti.ii,ri «... inJIrtrd for a l.ttirance. <J'h' Ir).!i trrei.i
fged that the pilitioner, un 11»r fi »f of July, |kvb arj ,n ,» v 4
ollitfri y »n'lio.e.,,tt!.a c nut, pf Berkeley, an ) w.lh.i, the ja. i.
a! ‘ ‘ ?i ip L |»Mtff*H ..I . cult „ null .ud nt. I
dtm. » thlhen •ppurtrn»iKeS.itii,.,, L*ar, end tiljacent to a c.rta.
* ion., ii 1,1,11.. a. |ub'.e t. a.l, and lb. dieclliite ,.f ut.
r, V1'' * »•»* ***•• C tumfliwealt:., unlawfully and io
j irij.. -y .1,. aoflar, ami permit Ilia w.t.r ot tli. ..id m II dam l.
..»c l ow . a jacent „t, ti *t|| ,b. !.•ue 0,,„„ hl, 0W1,
tof‘.*h'j r'‘ lof t-,K, w',y' *"J »!"> parinil the ,,m.
Iv beuifi.r itipiQianil r>J i me,*' I jr uj-an* wb*rrof. lc. Tiri.r
i r»|p<< a k* iiti«i ilt(iv*rr *r lo *1|P II dkiuirnt Tiif A.I tut
nr til. < o..u„n,..bh j, ned in tba d. ruu-. er, ami ulaS
by the Con i. The JUl) ». mid a T.iditl acaintl th**r,t,t, „,r. ,.rton
tba ploa of it.,( unity j andjndrm t.t eti reoderad far tbean .ru
n.ai.t axt.-rd y he Juty.ai J Ihe con. ol lb. prot.cutioo.
ad V'J V vT'i" 1 ""‘ol •7“ •» th« juJc o.. oi, wat tupp..r'
fd > P. . AccAp/u1, «| Culln«e| <oi th* p*tit» ,,»r. ||# in*i»Uci
that the Ii.dicliii-ot «... Utd icHi itntly cc ta n The h «hw,» i, n t
r,,,ed; nor II any locality K reo to tha iu:i ir n:ill ex, Th«r.
;• nn' •TV,..*n T r,nr'*'' “*• n*' 1 «•»' J-" « e in the conn,
t . That the) nre in th. conutv, it only to ha inferred fimo th. t»
Ciaduclvry part the indirtm. nt. If, towrver, th.. inference .. to
be Ccn.t, tie,* ...to B . >» rm-nl, U.m ll.-v me in h eoumy. ,„t| the
.ndhtn.ent ti.llbe m ntfi lent. It .hould gut a In.ih^, (f„c„pt1„,i
of the nnII, t . at t.. i.fenlify the .a,pa. I™*
.Vm-a.-nirr W. —Biorltnltouth J. H.potted the .pinion of IL«
Com' f Uni the p.l.tion for a wi.t of error be rejected.
f.Ahtritf, Stuatt J.
Ex pne tt Peter Lyont.
enmmi^w'J?'«0*“‘,.*lV0np l,.fc,lf r°C. Ca.ft lo
enmm.t tothe he-ce.ntof the c.ty of !l,. bumu l, the . ,t,t. of ^oAn
«. out eon, dec , leu...nine tiniilnaitiitlrriJ. Tne fo. o.-r . 'n).i...r ..
nil? ‘.'"n” ,S.” 11 "«• erented o. g .,.'1. to Tnfrannrf I‘r»
rilefon .t... Petit Ljonj, by the c.m y . ... King t, Utuan— n
.tut the il.atl. 01 tli. .utt a r ol Ih.ui, the tan e t ...
wh°o'VaVltu ef. VTl f, l t’ ltC“ ,,Ul“!n‘‘,“ »'>««!, to D Jamu Lgons,
J}?*.?"n lr'r K'"' ('•’«■<> hv the 'ounlv c net, Ilia
Jttor.iig Oencrri. .tj, there could b. r„, doo'o! ..f ihe j a. ...n ti
ofh‘, , oui(, U. an.wted b.t afier <ha d.mh of th. para.m to «h. u,
tb* com ty enoit had gianted adutinit ra ion the ju.V, l.cl.on .It thi.
c...„t.t..,e l„,..„d lie l.kene.1 ,t to the ca.e of tb. . r^ut «T
Aftir iueb ‘ V 1*1 »b '“ judgment wat /ever.*d
iV arame I hlM'n / V’ L“ """f «>lnii..i.trati..p; b ,t n.itl,'
thr^iibj. et ^ nT Oou.t tab. h eitgtnaTy pointifd juriadicliuu ,»«'
cM:.", Btockenirough J re nor led tha deci.inn of <1,
c It. I f Alter lo I coCJbl.till, U, Ihe JnJr.t t.ei r unaiu,n rnslo
VVin'OU, lf)4( (t.p (JrUMfl C!(.urf It(■.. i ..... ^
m;™. m,= ,:,7 jjurrr;rx.:
es;tr;;
nacexar.ly be K..ucd by the emae coutl.
fAititni Stuart J.
R *4> on Tuuifl.iy cvToioj/ lift l«v I
Mite A.lf J*'’" « o/thi. C ).
Fr.nUi„ , :un,y V.*TH, i{hl,,r °f VV‘"‘*ro ^^7,
tv,’/" *'•*• pily. on l liurt.lay QSth inat., by the Rar. J. 8i
l,2!!v^n“rM,/. ...
innn, .. men, e.„, ||m„,ver,
dangliter of t.apt Ktchard Brooke, dec'll.
w' .V'rd""*d.»V. the 17th inat., hy thn ftev Edward
J ' u ' r- U»*T*«of Alhnimirle county t., .%
Jtit. K„ duuglite, of I',a'. W. 8. Tornttr of Nr|. n enu tv
... . 1 VF OE.VKR.ir. WILLI A VS
kck.^MoVZ !««"• 'md "* ',4V* be*n ,uf“'- •■» U„
| Charle*tun Pat.
r»- - - » I ^nurie*tvn Fut.
a;s3jSSSs«s»=?~i.srEs:;
Mcf.LMi'nnr, titter of tli.i nl.ove, uK,-.l ,bou Cl r «,’ ,{i rf
Il.cn «.» «hn Ur John Mr R., ,J J?*'.1-"11 c'"'
dlie ago which hufl proved 011 |.itH| to thi* uoTtirtunntM C *» * '*
(Arkantat Oai., Are. 3.
Jt"> it mi iiicflectu.il cm.rt to perpetual# ll.eir men.!,,J ., , , ’ *,‘
--It,.. < r,.,m 1.1...it i.-|,',i rba’l.V. v 5.
lUCIlMO.YD PRICES T un n r v r
i inmrro, goon lo lino
I 'onitnon lo mid.
Re fiMu.il 3
Flour, (*. mill*, nevr,
Do canal d«
Whnl, rod 95,
Meal’
• lull,
Runn, por Ih
Hotter, iln
I 'iifTne, do
J'oli°n, (eery aearca)
Naifi, cut, do 5
Rico, do
^iiRiir, loaf & Dump,
Do. Mriiwn, 7 3
0 a 8
3M « 5
la a 3 i a
5 19
4 75
white 100
55
7(1
25 n 30
B I -9 a <1
II a 14
12a III
10 a 10 1-91
HO a 1B0I
l-2n3 3 4
3 a 3 1 9
H 12a 19,
4 a 12 1-41
H a 1?
39 a 3ft
ni
80 a 90
:u a :< i
250 n 300
I Hide*, Hpnni.h,
Ilrandy/Cfig. gallon,
Itnm, IV i-a| India,
l>o New Kiiglnnd,
Wine. .Mmloria, _ ,.r,
J{° ^ici'y Madeira, I JO a 1 J}0
l»ii Malaga, gg
Tea, Imp. ap.l Gimp. I 10 a 1 4ft
Uo Voung flyfnii, M0 « |lo
I’lOlaM^K, a
Jlornn, per 100 lb* 4 a t 1-8
[jar fmn, do 3 3-4 a 4 1-9
I ork, per bbl >■
r.":",, . «'V. 5 *8 a"
J III Herring*,No. I, 5 1-9 n ft 3 4
Salt, peraack. oin.ma
h.x;.t ' ” "7'o'3 “35r"r“'
"... n,o», . p?tc?* OFHTOCKS.
Ilnnk of Virginia, . gg ,-y>
r BfniOTi flank, . . mQf\ *J7
.. covnsu of ’/cxc/isi.vr;n.
North Carolina Hank Nolan. Q
8<»iith Carolina, do. 1112
^ado. g I i q
J^iHJK-nn.i.HAiAu » i -IsVTiCS
,r , - . * • ,'°"1 w I' »<-•» »n illfrt finer* jon
h o( Jl'11 *;y. 18«*. f r -he recepfi,,, of Board.",
if.y r,U(,|i,._;|l litrli « r| h, laugh' i|,, • »», rh,.
O. ,.p..jrv , r„n^ rducafi. n-* z: o 'boK',pUv
IfeaJii g, Writing. Arithmetic, Grammar. Belle, I V
(omf° 0:v«r«rhy (”*"*• '»•« »«« of '.I,,
' in i-d OUf.l N.'ural Philo»o|*».y, Chfrr,Uf,\
l iiT. *!“' l'‘ 'T’0,,'r,‘ Hi',0ry- "»*h <hr Ftench
Mm. S avurrr-fir p-.|,!ir lh«f ..I-. ...
(done flit young ladm* committed lo herrare th h'
»ll or.f t.e diaappo nftd. at many ym„., fX’nr„tr
:V::'x;;'izrudw"h ,b*
Of L'l"!*™ .V1l"!e.N. W‘M b* af
n ronn'ha—with an aridiitnnal ch.-g. of *|(t io,
Sarfc 8iit, |,ixtrpntyl fll.,*. in ,,r,r
y H POLLARD & PON
m «if
2500
fi'C M.
_ . I-UIC.MIUN.
Brunswick minkual merinos -^rhe e*.
amitiation of the »uirui*of thu iu.’itutioj, at
,w» PUc**- w'" e* th l«t XI. i„t.v in I> c-ni'-er
auJ will r«,n m..# taro .'ay,. T>.* of f „
raiure aio re.penfu ly invitiil t„ t,„ ,x.r.
cl4..o( the »rh.Jol will ie-raij.rrti.ee the tir.i Mood.v
■ n Jiljiitry UMl; the Male L> p-i'nivnl under i|,H
ill Johu 8. Bobbitt anil J«hu J Wythe. 1 |,r Frni*lr
D'l'lltnirkt under the mine P.ecrplre•«. ae.iai. d |f
'hr tmu.ber if yoni » ladire »hal| requhe it. by a ro’u
)>r»rm i.»*ori,v«. The tout 10 of rlinllee »Q ilu.#e
• » In''’ •. »'.d ! «,.| tiaUf><, w ill be more fully noticed
ti * l .'U e pub ic«liou Sulhre li to my a- prefer
Met Inaiiucl'Aii Mill be jfivrii iu tie M.,le D-.partl
ii.ei.t. n tLe L 'li>. Uterk, K'rtirh, Sp.nl li and I a'ian
L lhrpVm I*“« I *’’ }"K'Ut of 1*0 engllah.
, , S Femnle Sihool me 1.11*1,1 .|| t|„ O
u in .T,fit br*T, #* L uC4 ‘ ° fi »'-v be
obtained tor the male rlndebte. in rr.prc able l..i,/iii,«
"l/o! ^,I>"*r'* J * irhbvurhooil ot «t,B Artemy.
II m. OAo/aon. who r..hie. a* he ...... vtdl
«".r,t*l> eJ fiOln ei*b.y t„ „ne bno.lra.l
Boarders. lh« young Udiaa will boord with the Pie*
ccpircte, ami beamier her irrm-dute . are.
Nor. 26 °f,,er
AA
Ilf HS- y- K I-ATT I MORE h.vm* I|l4 euiT.
I,-„ — t iMtun m-ff the More „f
Mv r* lCr,,,,,',,, s,,u a' J «. ou E or rujin .freer,
e","'r 14 »> •« **•. Iea.ll, * oeerM.yo*;
bruJge, ear area mu.odnU bear.’are. hy «h~d,v wt*k
ii.onti! or ft;; her house I. !• riml.t <1 ,vU|, ,mw *, ,J
ihebe-t hiruitore; Jiao he h, ofdi,,* and * |arita
cullac'lwo ?' .,h“ b '' a' J "‘"t' V-*«»W0 took*. Iu
Ih» En*lt-h L»ngtia«e, which .he I he frte for U u
arr>>iiniio«|a>l(>fi of the boarderr; aha cm, accommo
date ten or I waive Mcn.b.re of the A t mUyiar.d
hope, they will favour her n hh .fitco,„o,,.y. a,
,« * * ,u‘,,,r’h- d ilaily with .he beat St-rii ’
I "tut Oys era She |« aware (hat her a.Cua J,n ,, ll0l *
roovInTaUW V'°! T* '"*ny otherp J bvt U**‘ iu‘
S ir , f rW,,fr'1 l,y »n.l
l.ril walk, and the ct joytmut of the iraie V nflli-'o*, ■
»iw‘j ia’
,:.ft ol |h« cat" SI ** '"’i' |,\.,L ire'1* "i!* *“» «*t»,r
*t-om (WentV V,l, 1 ?** ' b* KU,i fo ACfOfnfl«Or|*f#
wl ere S e ^ .‘i"n**^n• * «•* hav* room, ol.e
Til*,, h,* £e.,ih me,, that
* * u lb buaii e»# near hr, *,i|i |.,vor hrf w.,i, lh-,
company, a* the ha- |l,,. „.0,» . 11 Il,lr
•i-n OU.L Brit k Ro~ IX, "U*
•la led hy the .fay, wrtk. mi u h rr \ e ,r. HeVulT will
brV; *00‘1 ‘ff-J.-td her ri,u« J.
N,’v 26- 58—2w
W^EMALE EDUCAIlON -.Mio. CuwT.~:- , ),
M. for -be ••..IIII,u ve r Wj I con m , r,. he 17,.,
ol January rt*., am) .ml 0., the KM, 0 December
mer." U<’ *V‘,h “ Vdl-,1«" »',t (i.ouJ, j„ ih. rum*
II or pure will be t«er,v .1. ||„. p,r ,. h -.t*r. f,r
teachi, b Ke.iUo,, W,K„,r, A.i-hm-iic. KnJ- h Urar.,
m»r »lr,( ry at,,; Oeoyr-p y with h- u.e cl ihe
It.I; *
A.> eet.a rha.er v ,|| be l„.,|e of . f, ,!o!I.,r. f0r
Fr.urh —twelve ,1 IU., fvr Them.,,. ...
live .1' 11.1.0 lor nhl'i a 'I o-f a ne*i a . e . .v k
* L)ii-irw I'e (f in, B »,iit|ie can be ha n
fiimly lt>, $S0.
Mia. M-.V E Oraafor M.a* el,.. , r .
yt are anil I believe fl14 P,v n e,,.,r* ,0, |
c..;, I.ter her mo an I ta!,,,.. f ,r ,h.
th l.l.en to be of the hi^hee' er««ft^; op.l he qoaMli
.Th.M ’• *'"'h fc'M- '* I’1" luatrunloQ
|.| ClniJi ell Ciinuiltleil l> her r a.K».
t . p , ' HAlii..ES Y. KIMBROUGH.
L’Ui.t tum,ty,N(v 1830
I hav* fee wnnl yea.. ,.an. hern a pifon (o s erhgol
kepi near me hy M,ee Ci.iwfonl; arid it affo-.l. me a «e.
e.tliar ple.enr . in ha-e II in myp.w. r -o say. tha’fn
the be„o my juftmeni. J |,»Ve alivaya admire,I her
.y-tr,no.leaeh.„{;..bM„< .,f,nlrah|v a f pie,I loth.
.m,..ovr,,,.oi ol.h- ir cral», ami tl,.. a.) *Zc m. M of
Ihe ml- lectual faeulii-, ,h« .rh l.r-h r rule heine
r;,r0:,V,'r.B"' I* ar.«1 urr.nlon.te ha.
Ie» li ,i » pr" ""•»* f0 11 0 • *•»•'» I *re piiw.nl e.l her
rhool Hie hippies! ami niiol ra i-tariory re.ult_her
u’al h I aoT ,U ■” l:ra,,< h" w»»“ •> *l.e prapoee. to
it a, h have b.en iu. an. b y aduii’l tl.
T : o JOHN M PRICE.
Loui.a County, Nov 13.1830
llayeaho patroniaed Mt-s Craw'ord'. .rhool, and
rj, ►•••«*« •uerctibe t) thr a' ove cer'.f.rnt- „♦ Mr.
Vwvr MC°- E N. SANDIDOE
° ™ 58 — n-4 .*
f^V'’eN.',rV:‘:„,Vi; HEVVAHD^T Hill
• vie,, i m - n r. »> •yuu -i u,|l
atvetbe eboveiewt, t! to any pet dd that wltl dellv.
of ll"r L Y *, rtlre "* K"> ' n t-'1 ° ft .'t, by the name
Bi.lirr,yJ,fk-ttn;°! •> curercoionr, abon. 3 fe.-r 8 or
9 .nfrhea bl*h, ami .boot 32 or 3 ye,r. of ape. When
he ab.pouded, lud on a do,, -vie roate, vrey pan i
tit cl* f * T'n " Mr W Cla, k’a, MVa, chea
ter. ( U.terfio d Coun y. He j. eapected o b« datirou*
«h m »“ L;rC^ ‘,0'v,, *n«l w*a,
T-key
CHRISTOPHER T. BROfl N
N rra, B.wle/a Po-t Office, lu^x County. Va.
| iA.NU warrants and st;iup._Mr. Ma,
Ihe^lS h of n’,* r T"' *’* R,r,'mo1 d ,0 rr'ftaht Iron
the 1 o h of D-cemh. r next until the ri-i K of if,- I e
11 * w;r ,a n;y *n«t r« Purc»,»!
•* *''' *rrJ"N u- Scrip—and to roiitre.c' lortl,. \ .ti
1 i* st-np. All Inter* adilittea ,1 t„ m. |ier,
zzz°::\:^u,,ou M,r- "r*r •• «»■*hS3
Jln lm! If »v “n*w"ftd Bn,> vvi h 4. prompt a
tention as if I wan prea-nt. ' K
N 0f? CADVVALLADER WaM.ACE
—IzlLIll._ S8 - I Ot*
tj 1 DIFHS L r °N;UV’<)h f ,CLK« AND SOL
, ‘HERS.—The siihrrnbcr ten.lns hi* «etvic». to
»i- offi 'CN »,„| .oldie,. of the R v,.ht ion, in proem in?
J"r,*,rl ft»; «»»* j-n.la to whirl. they ar ent.th.,1 nnd«r
‘ ' I. *n o' ( on*r*.,. H« i. ,|.0 prrf,n e<t lo"
h?** ol •* »•>.» »rfl to re 11 ^
inlorni.'un may be oVahitd t.v ,tir..c.j„r ,, hlin .
rsrAjx-.'."': - M«“ -Sk
N.„ M. BENJAMIN F. MICHIE.
-— -___- 6*—wtf
Vsih’-T.'v ,u,:vn.'-r *"1 °*’00 * Training
x * 3.«l. o •( Noiv Markel ne.t rnririf, muter the
-an,Ke„.e,.« of Chari-s (torme,ly -he'pro&rty oT Mr
W ym.) an.I will take |,« or three » or* good coll* and
border to be trained on lit. umial vnn«
n , . XI THOMAS BRANCH.
P Lr.burg, Nov 2fi 6S—8,
!.1' *S ■' '■ "• " I Mn*iii*
to Hi?ntff,n Tmri), rnlled ClAver
ur7n’ !h '"‘‘t* ,,f'r Lv' c,,bur*. on the main S..*,,
. ’ " u,r« , e w *' happy to arronmodel* bin ol.l
friend, and the public generally—Me w.ll ho prepared
o irci'iQinodftte Drover* a*iio. *
p , ,. .. ROBERT SCRUGGS,
C m,b.l Nov. 26_ 58—iv2<v
:'n,e '^7777 7n» ,,..i,inn ,n,UIO|t
y* 1*'“ uee n, Vikiil« or. Divorce Irnm Me
jekem,ah ““«•
:y.. r«.
I, . r 1 7. L5 **»«• Atten.Wy vv th
N * m" W 0‘y,, "'l',r,,r* Caplol
_ &8— if
BXG-Q-EJ&’S OFFICE!
- jjKAW INti N, w v, , k |
4!> 8
N
80 6(1
lo:
2 HI
$« 500
1,000
niGOER.
• to t*e .)r two
!» SO,<’00
»• poo
10.000
6,000
4,010
10.000
31 21 «J
1 N'. 2 50 01, car,it. I nt
8 84 58, .h,
But1, ful.l and paid 8» tight r.i «i»»ia; by
UNff>N canal l orir nv-^SJiai
on 8. turd*y 4 h I
SPLENDID CAPITA?.}
1 prt** of jji.'to no,.
; J 'J" 16 000
1 d’ 10,two
1 «•» 6 OIM
I ilo 4 0|0
; •*» do > 1,000
10 .■•rh fioo, fit 0, 400 ». .t {too
I iek-t. .j;|0—h ire. in pmpi.it on.
\*0 or. OiCel It e M.M- p „ ,„,,„b>n from
as <v* THOS. B DIGGER, K.chii.o. H, V*.
Wa<rJ> 67-2
WIGf |CK. Ad p^r- n »*hn il .itr info matlon eon
. * t" ,,r,f k",u 1,1 h "" r‘" fide.l by them
to-he l.te II It Brown., will nb a t- make «np|iCi
l1™ 0 H • F. Wlrl,.e. K tj . f R r: r„r., ,»Mt
centlem. n haring undertak n to < I a« the ».„,e in run.
junction with Mr. Contrav Hubincon.
Tl o*e per.on* (.on wliom f. e* tin Hue »rt r n
B own*, **lll plr.rr to pay the .au.e l„ M, '
*- «■_"• *ty:zN*
MU \ V E lor r ale, on a credit nr f0. e.eh.a tarae Ja'k
iouftsJJ 77 A,'v f .ratto!, ^
• ■ rnproo * t. re, Iltot.r. .p...* r , wi-, „ „1l(, d
'% CHILES THOMPSON.
-- _67-W4IV*
\\ VP?? it IMr dRe., *n apprpvVk’p ....
I’d.-Itina — o ,• from u r I ..ontiy will i.« *