and the award, under the hands and seals of the arbitrators and umpire was returned to court, whereupon, the case was adjourned to the general court.

November 14, 1803. The general court, consisting of Judges Tyler, Jones, White and Carrington, certified the following opinion. "It seems to the court that the writ

66

[which laid the damages at five hundred dollars] and "declaration in this cause exhibit a sufficient claim on "behalf of the plaintiff to give the said district court "jurisdiction, and the parties having by mutual consent "submitted the determination of the cause to arbitrators, "and agreed that their award should be made the judg"ment of the said district court, it is the opinion of this "court that the said award ought to be governed by the "same reason that would have governed a confession of "judgment, had such confession been made in the said 66 court by the defendant and accepted by the plaintiff, "and therefore that judgment ought to be entered by the "said district court for the plaintiff."

Vid. Maitland vs. M'Dearman.

The Commonwealth against Martin Walton.

NE John Spencer was brought before an Examin

ONE

ing Court for the County of Louisa, in November, 1800, charged with having feloniously broken open the dwelling house of Alexander Harvey, and stolen from thence a silver watch of the value of twenty-two dollars, and other articles. On his examination, the court were of opinion, that he ought to be tried for the offence at the next District Court of Charlotteville, and that he might give security for his appearance at the said district court. Thereupon, the said John Spencer, together with the defendant, came before the said examining court, and entered into a recognizance, conditioned for the appearance of the said John Spencer on the first day of the ensuing district court, to be then and there tried for the felony with which he stands charged.

At the next district court, Spencer did not appear, whereupon his default was recorded, and a scire facias was awarded against Spencer and the defendant, returnable to the next court. It was not executed, whereupon at the ensuing court another scire facias was awarded, and was executed on the defendant, but not on Spencer, he having absconded. The defendant first pleaded

"no such record," but afterwards withdrew the plea, and at the district court, held in April, 1803, on the motion of the defendant, it was ordered that the attorney for the commonwealth should shew cause. if any he could, why the said scire facias should not be quashed, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction thereof, the recognizance having been entered into before the court of Louisa county. The question arising upon this rule was then adjourned to the general court.

November 15th, 1803, the general court, consisting of Judges Tyler, Jones and Carrington, decided" that the "said district court hath not jurisdiction of the scire "facias in the record mentioned, and that the said scire "facias, and the proceedings thereon, ought to be quash❝ed."

Note. By an act passed January 24th, 1804, copies of recognizances of prisoners let to bail, in the county, or corporation courts, are to be transmitted to the district courts, and if the prisoner does not appear, his default is to be recorded, and a scire facias awarded against him, on which the same proceedings are to be had, as if the prisoner had been bailed by the district court. See 2d Rev. Co. p. 37, sect. 2.

ANONYMOUS.

AT the District Court of Fredericksburg in October,

1804, the following entry was made in the order book. "The question whether the court hath original jurisdic"tion to receive and sustain an indictment for felony "before the indictee hath been examined by a court of

'justice in the manner prescribed by law, and to proceed "to trial on the same indictment after the said indictee "be removed to the jail of this district, by an examining

court convened subsequent to the finding of the said "indictment, is for novelty and difficulty adjourned to "the general court?"

To which question that court consisting of judges Tyler, White and Carrington, Nov. 15, 1804, made the following answer: "The court is of opinion that the dis❝trict court hath not original jurisdiction to receive and "sustain an indictment for felony, before the indictee "hath been examined by a court of justices in the man"ner prescribed by law, and that after the said indictee "hath been examined before a court of justices, and sent "to the jail of a district court, a new indictment must be "filed against him before his trial in the said court."

A?

Turner R. Henley's Case.

Ta General Court, November 18th, 1805, present

judges White, Stuart, and Creed Taylor, the following adjourned case from the district court of Richmond, was read to the court. "The attorney general this day "moved the court to direct the clerk to issue an execu"tion on a judgment yesterday entered in favour of Ro"bert Leonard against Turner R. Henley, on the con"viction of the said Turner R. Henley for larceny, "but the court being of opinion that this is a case of no"velty and difficulty, doth adjourn the same to the gene"ral court for its decision, what execution ought to be "issued to enforce the judgment in such cases."

On consideration whereof, the court decided, "that "judgment ought not to have been entered in the said "case for the money in the indictment mentioned, and "therefore execution ought not to issue on the judgment "entered therein."

T