Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Va. 258

Bailey's Case

General Court of Virginia

Decided July 1, 1815

General Court of Virginia · decided 1815-07-01

HE was indicted in the Williamsburg District Court, September term 1798, before Prentis and Tucker, judges of the general court, for the murder of Richard Whitaker.

Decided 1815-07-01

Tucker Judge.

¶1The essence of a plea of former acquittal, or conviction is, that he was legitimo modo acquietatus, &c. Here then it is necessary that the party should have been *261acquitted or convicted not only in due form, but by a court having competent jurisdiction. 1st. As to due form. Here is nothing in this record that amounts to an acquittal or conviction of either murder or manslaughter. The party was not arraigned;—he was not even indicted;—there can be no acquittal or conviction, but in consequence of both these modes of proceeding. 2 H. H. P. C. 216. 4 Bl. 322.

¶22d. The court had not competent jurisdiction; the court has no jurisdiction in criminal cases beyond the letter of the act. That act authorizes the court only to do one of three things; viz. to consider, whether as the case may appear to them the prisoner may be discharged from further prosecution; may be tried in the county or corporation court, or must be tried by the district court. Now the act establishing county courts is express, that these courts shall not have jurisdiction in any case, where the judgment in case of conviction shall be for life or member,

¶33d. The record produced does not support either of these pleas. An acquittal must be final: so must a conviction: the court have neither acquitted, nor convicted; for they have sent him hither to be tried for the offence of manslaughter. Here then the opinion of the court is neither qn acquittal nor a conviction, but merely an opt-*262nion that he must be tried before a court having competent jurisdiction of the case, who may thereafter acquit or convict as the case shall appear before them.

Prentis Judge,

¶4dissented from the junior judge as to the record’s not supporting the pleas. He thought it did support them. Therefore the court being divided the judgment of the court was necessarily in favour of the prisoner, (See the district court law, ch. 66, sect. 16.) viz. that there is such a record. But as he concurred in the opinion that the county court had no right to discriminate betwen murder and manslaughter, the prisoner was put upon his trial upon the indictment for murder, and found guilty of manslaughter.

/1/va/258 · .json · Public domain