"fence stated in the said indictment. 2d. Because if it "has jurisdiction there is error in the issue and verdict, “aforesaid, inasmuch as the court under the act of assem'bly are to try such offence in a summary way, without 66 pleadings, or the intervention of a jury. 3d. Because "the said indictment charges three different offences "against three different persons which cannot legally be "joined in one indictment, viz. One for exhibiting a faro "bank by the defendant Heydon; one for playing at such "bank by the defendants M'Guire and Tidball; and one "against Edmondson, for suffering such conduct in his "house." The question of law arising on these reasons was adjourned, and the general court, June 16th, 1798, consisting of Judges Parker, Jones, Tyler, Nelson, and White, decided, "that the indictment against the defendants is "good, and sufficient in law, and that the plea of the said "defendants in arrest of judgment on the jury's verdict "ought to be overruled." Q The Commonwealth against David Hays. THE HE prisoner was indicted at the Dumfries District Court, in October, 1798, for larceny of a slave. There were two counts; the first charged him with having feloniously stolen, taken and carried away, a negro slave named Tom, of the value of 100% of the property, and of the goods and chattels of John Hunter; "from the possession of the said John Hunter." The second count was precisely the same with the first, except that it did not charge the slave to be taken from the possession of any person: the words in inverted commas being omitted. Neither count charged the offence to have been "contra formam statuti." The jury found a verdict as follows; "we, of the jury "find the prisoner guilty of feloniously stealing, taking, "and carrying away negro Tom, as charged in the first 66 count, while the said slave was a runaway; if the law "is against him, we find him guilty: if the law is not "against him, we find him not guilty: we further find "him guilty of the charge in the second count." The prisoner moved to arrest the judgment, because, "the indictment against him, and the verdict thereupon, 66 are insufficient in law." The question was adjourned, and the general court, November 17th, 1798, consisting of Judges Prentis, Tucker, Tyler, Nelson and Carrington, decided, "that "the law is for the defendant, and that he ought to be "acquitted of the offence charged in the first count, in "the said indictment, the slave stolen being then a "runaway, and not in the actual possession of the said. "John Hunter; and of the second, because the offence "charged, is not an offence at common law." Goodtitle, Lessee of George Reed and uxor, against George See. THIS HIS was an action of ejectment, instituted in the County Court of Hardy, in September, 1796. In the succeeding November, on the motion of the defendant, the court ordered that the plaintiffs should give security for costs, within sixty days thereafter, in default whereof the suit should be dismissed: "it appearing to "the court, that the said plaintiffs are not inhabitants of "this state-notice hereof being now given to the plain"tiffs' attorney." (See Vol. I. Rev. Code, p. 111, sect. 23, which authorizes this proceeding.) The suit was continued at March, August and November courts, 1797. At March court, 1798, on the motion of the defendant, the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff having failed to give security for costs within sixty days agreeably to the order of court made November, 1796. The plaintiff at the same time offered sufficient security for costs, which the court then refused to receive, the sixty, days having passed. The plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court and appealed. The district court of Hardy, stating that the decisions of the district courts have been variant on this point, adjourned the cause to the general court for difficulty. June 14th, 1799. The general court, consisting of Judges Tucker, Tyler, Henry, Jones and Nelson, gave the following decision. "The court is of opinion, that as "the plaintiff in this cause was ready to give security "for the costs before the cause was dismissed, the county "court ought to have permitted him to do so, and not "to have dismissed his suit, and that the said suit ought "to be reinstated in the said district court; and it is "further the opinion of this court, that in all such cases, "where there is no general agent or attorney in fact for "the plaintiff known to the defendant, notice to the "attorney prosecuting the suit is sufficient." The Commonwealth against Henry Bedinger. `HERE were four cases against the defendant, for THERE misdemesnors, in which D. Hunter was prosecutor. On motion of the defendant, and on notice given to the prosecutor, the venue in these cases were changed for good cause shewn, from Winchester district court to Staunton. November general court, 1799. Note. The same course was adopted in the year 1790, in a case of the Commonwealth against Robert Taylor for a trespass. The defendant having given notice to the prosecutor, the cause was removed from Suffolk to Williamsburgh; and during the same court on motion of the prosecutor, from Williamsburgh to Richmond. The Commonwealth against Highland Crowe. IN N an indictment against the defendant for an assault, in the County Court of Loudon, a judgment was rendered against him for 50%. from which judgment an ap |