"amined in the manner prescribed by law, by the court "of the county or corporation wherein the offence was "committed."

William Maitland, surviving partner, &c. against Thomas M'Dearman.

THIS

HIS was an action of assumpsit by the plaintiff against the defendant, brought on a store account. The declaration claimed 651. 2s. 6d. and a verdict was rendered for 10l. 12s. 2d. only. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the verdict was no more than the sum last mentioned. The district court of Prince Edward, (in which the suit was brought and the verdict rendered,) deeming the question arising on the point of law in the case to be difficult, adjourned the same to the general court. The accounts exhibited on the trial, were copied into the record. The first was an account raised against the defendant by James M'Clellan, which begun in November, 1791, and ended in September, 1794, making a balance against the defendant, of 51/. 15s. 4jd.

The second was an account raised against the defendant, by M'Clellan and Maitland, under the firm of James M'Clellan and Co., beginning in October, 1794, and ending in June, 1796; the first item in this account was the above mentioned balance, transferred from the first account. The amount of this second account was 651. 2s. 6d. The third was an account raised by the defendant against James M'Clellan "for sundries not cre"dited in M'Clellan's account against M'Dearman," and consisted of three items in each of the years 1795, 6, and 7, mounting to 56/. 10s. 5d.

The general court, consisting of judges Tucker, Jones, and Stuart, November 15, 1802, decided "that judg66 ment upon the verdict rendered in the said cause ought "to be arrested, because it doth not appear from the re"cord, that the plaintiff's demand was reduced below the "sum of one hundred dollars, by any set-off against the 66 same offered on the part of the defendant at the trial.”

Vid. Neff v. Talbot.

The Commonwealth against John Richards.

THE defendant was presented by the grand jury, at

the District Court of Fredericksburg, in April, 1799, as follows: "We do present John Richards, publican, for "having suffered unlawful gaming to be carried on in his

dwelling house, and an outhouse on a lot in his occupa"tion, having permitted a faro-bank to be opened, held "and played at in the same, within the space of the last "six months." Process was issued to cause the defendant to appear, and at the court in September, 1800, the attorney for the commonwealth filed an information against him consisting of six counts.

The first count charged the defendant with knowingly, &c. and openly permitting Thomas Haydon and others to the attorney unknown (all being of idle, dissolute, dissipated, disorderly, and immoral habits, and of evil fame and conduct) openly to play at cards, with dice, and at a faro-bank in the said John Richards's public house, tavern and ordinary, then occupied, held and kept by him, to the general corruption of morals, to the evil example of the citizens in general, and of the youth in particular, contrary to the principles of the public order, police and economy, and against the peace and dignity, &c.

The 2d count charged the defendant with permitting B. Badger, T. Haydon and others to openly and publicly exhibit, hold and play at for money, and to entice and induce the unwary and the idle to play, &c. another farobank in an outhouse on a lot, occupied by and in the possession of the defendant. (Conclusion as in first count.)

The 3d count was on the Act of 1792 (1 Rev. Co. p. 204, sec. 9.) and charged him with suffering T. H. and others to play at cards, and with dice and at a faro-bank in the tavern of the defendant, in the possession and keeping of the defendant a tavern keeper, and that the defendant was privy and consenting to the said gaming, and that he did not endeavour to hinder them the said players from so playing, against the form of the act of assembly &c. wherefore he prayed judgment for the pain and penalty in that case provided. The 4th count was on the same act, and charged him with permitting B. B. and others to exhibt, hold and play at faro-bank in an outhouse on a lot, messuage and tenement, being in the possession and keeping of the defendant as tavern keeper; and that the defendant was privy, present and consenting to the said unlawful gaming, and that he did not endeavour to hinder them from playing, against the form of the act of assembly, &c.

The 5th count was founded on the act of 1797, ch. 2 sect. 3 (1 Rev. Co. p. 373) and charged that the defen

dant "did knowingly and wilfully suffer another un"lawful game, to wit, the game of faro-bank with cards at "a faro-bank to be played at his the said J. R's house, ta"vern and ordinary, at the time and place last mentioned, "being occupied by the said J. R. against the form &c. "wherefore the said attorney (who for the commonwealth by this information sues for the forfeiture of one hun"dred and fifty dollars, by the said act declared and in"flicted) prays that the same may be adjudged to the "said commonwealth." The 6th count was on the said act of 1797, and was like the 5th count, except that it charged the gaming at faro to be carried on in an out-house in a lot held and occupied by, and in the possession of the said John Richards. The defendant having pleaded “not. guilty," a trial was held, and the jury found a verdict in the following words: "We of the jury do find the "defendant John Richards guilty, in manner and form as in the fifth count in this information is charged, and "we do find that he is not further guilty."

66

The defendant moved the court to arrest the judgment, for the following reasons. " 1st. That by the act of general assembly, upon which the jury in their said ver"dict, found the said John Richards guilty, the forfeiture of one hundred and fifty dollars is given to the person who will sue for the same, to be recovered in any court of record, and doth not give the remedy