Viewing page 162 of 243

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

4

tried, that the Accused could not possibly have received, of them, as alleged, what they had been pronounced not guilty of having stolen.  This being strenuously opposed by the Commonwealths Attorney, the point at issue was fully argued, before the Jury, on both sides; and still, the Court finally decided not to admit the Verdict in evidence:  The consequence was, the man, as an Accessory, was convicted; thereby also making the Principals out guilty, after they had been acquitted; and he punished (though, it is true, sentenced to only ten days imprisonment) while they escape without punishment.

But to return: after the Case of Preston had been closed, Jur Irving - considering his unfortunate condition - made a tolerably good argument - although scarcely audible - showing conclusively enough that the charge of Larceny could not, under the concomitant circumstances, be sustained against his client; and, that, notwithstanding it was true he was amenable to the charge of Trespass, he now ought to be certainly discharged on the present count, if ever he were to be immediately after rearrested on the lesser indictment.

The Commonwealth's attorney replied, that, while not disputing the premises assumed by the Counsel for the Defense, it was, the province of a Jury only to decide the point at issue, and that it lay entirely beyond the jurisdiction of merly an examining Court; - and this, notwithstanding that an examining Court, and even a single Justice of the Peace, both have authority to discharge (and have done, and do do it) even a man who has killed another - let it be said in self defence - provided it is not decided that there is probable reason why he should be sent on for further trial; on a charge of murder for example; &c.  Of course, through the 
  

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-10-26 15:37:36