"therefor to the commonwealth by information, or "otherwise, it not being an offence at the common law; "and because the said information is vague, uncertain "and wants form."

In October 1802, the district court adjourned to the general court, for novelty and difficulty, this point arising in this cause. "Whether the forfeiture of one hun"dred and fifty dollars declared by the act of 1797, ch. 2, "sect. 3, can be recovered for the use of the common"wealth by information in this court?"

The general court, November 12, 1803, consisting of judges Tucker, Tyler, White and Carrington, certified their opinion to be" that the forfeiture of one hundred "and fifty dollars declared by the act of 1797, chapter 2d, "sect. 3d, cannot be recovered for the use of the com"monwealth by information."

Note. June term, 1810, present Nelson, White, Stuart, Coalter and Evans, it was decided that county court law, authorizing presentments in those courts, by grand juries for all offences, although the penalties should be otherwise recoverable, and the act, Rev. Code, vol. 1, p. 373, sect. 7, giving the district courts power to execute all laws, for the purpose of suppressing gaming, as fully as the county courts are authorized to execute said laws,

the superior courts have therefore the right to sustain a prosecution for the penalties of one hundred and fifty dollars, on behalf of the commonwealth although given to the informer.

The Commonwealth against Moses M'Cue, and

others.

HE defendants were indicted in the District Court of

THE

Staunton, for an assault and battery, &c. on Charles Rogers and his wife; Rogers was the prosecutor, and petitioned the general court to change the venue to the Sweet Springs, or elsewhere. The application was founded on an affidavit, that the public mind had been prejudiced against the prosecution by the industrious misrepresentations of the defendants and their adherents. The defendants were likewise heard by affidavit, and other evidence, tending to prove that the application for a change of venue was intended to force the defendants into a compromise that had been offered; and that the public mind about the Sweet Springs had been prejudiced against the defenddants.

The court, consisting of judges Jones, Nelson and White, June 14th, 1803, decided that the venue should be changed to the district court of Charlottesville.

S

The Commonwealth against Peyton Chapman.

THE

HE defendant was indicted at the District Court of Fredericksburg, in May, 1803, for attempting to bribe a deputy sheriff, and by a corrupt offer of money to induce him to summon such persons on the jury, (which at a former court was to be summoned for the trial of the said defendant, on a felonious charge) as he the defendant should name and designate. The defendant was convicted, and fined by his jury 450 dollars. He moved to arrest the judgment, because the offence, charged in the indictment, was not an offence at common law, and because it was not charged, that he offered any specific sum of money, or other thing to the said deputy sheriff. The district court overruled the motion, and gave judgment against him for the fine assessed by the jury, and committed him to the custody of the sheriff, until he should pay the fine and costs. At the next term of the court, to wit, in October, 1803, the defendant prayed to be admitted to the benefit of the act made and provided for the discharge of insolvent debtors. The district court in order finally to settle the point, adjourned to the general court this question: "Whether one so committed, "(as the defendant,) can discharge himself under the said "act." The general court, November 14, 1803, consist

ing of Judges Tyler, Jones, White and Carrington, decided "that a person convicted for a misdemeanor, and "committed to the custody of a gaoler, until he shall pay "the fine adjudged against him, cannot discharge himself "therefrom, under the act made and provided for the re"lief of insolvent debtors."

Note. By an act passed December 28, 1803, persons imprisoned for fines, or amercements, may take the oath of insolvency, and be thereupon discharged. See 2d Rev. Code, p. 27, ch. 24.

ANONYMOUS.

HE District Court of Fredericksburg, at its fall

THE

term, in 1803, adjourned to the general court this question, "whether an attorney for the commonwealth, "in a district court, hath right and authority to discon"tinue prosecutions, on penal statutes, for misdemeanors, “and in criminal cases, without previously obtaining the "leave of the court for that purpose." The general court consisting of five judges, at the fall term of 1803, unanimously decided," that the district court attorney has not a right to enter a noli prosequi, in any case without the 66 consent of the court first had."

Francis Neff against Presly Talbot.

HIS was an action of assumpsit. In consequence of

THIS

an affidavit on the writ, setting forth the cause of action, and that the party would probably abscond, bail was demanded in the sum of eighty dollars. The suit was instituted in the District Court of Winchester. The declaration contained many counts, of which the first was general indebitatus assumpsit, and the rest were special. The sum claimed in the special counts was 23/. 10s. the value of a horse sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, and for which, the defendant had given to the plaintiff an order, or piece of paper, the consideration whereof was said to have failed. By the general count two hundred dollars were claimed. The damages were laid at five hundred dollars. The jury impannelled to try the cause, not being able to agree, a juror was withdrawn, and the rest discharged, and the parties mutually submitted all matters in difference between them in this suit, to the final determination of six persons named, or in case of their disagreement to the award of an umpire, to be by them chosen; whose award or the award of such umpire, they agreed should be made the judgment of the court. The arbitrators disagreed, and chose an umpire, by whom an award was made in favour of the plaintiff for 23l. 10s.