Commonwealth v. Alexander

General Court of Virginia

Commonwealth v. Alexander

1 Va. 156

DecidedJuly 1, 1815

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Va. 156 (Commonwealth v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering General Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 1 Va. 156 (Va. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

THE defendant was indicted at the District Court of Haymarket, “ for taking his seat as a justice of the “ peace in the county of Loudon, the 9th of August, 1803,* “ on the bench of the said county court, and acting as a “justice and member of the court then and there sitting, “ in giving his vote upon a judicial question and exami- “ nation at the time depending in the said court, and in “ signing the minutes of its proceedings as presiding “justice thereof, while he the said John Alexander was “ in a state of intoxication, from the drinking of spirit- “ ous liquors, which rendered him incompetent to the « discharge of his duty with decency, decorum, and día-[157]*157u cretion, and disqualified him from a fair and full exer- “ else of his understanding in matters and things at the “ time and place last mentioned judicially before him, to “ the great disgrace of the administration of public jus- “ tice; and to the evil example of persons in authority; “ whereby the said John Alexander was guilty of mis-behaviour in his office of justice of the peace in and “ for the said county of London, against the peace and u dignity of the commonwealth.”

The jury found the defendant guilty, and assessed his fine to fifty dollars. The attorney for the commonwealth moved for a j udgment for the fine, and also that the defendant be removed from his office of justice of the peace for the said county. The district court “ doubting “ whether it had authority to remove the defendant from “ his office aforesaid, and also whether evidence could be “ exhibited to the court after the discharge of the jury “ before whom the issue was tried, to prove the general “ ill conduct, and mal-administration of the defendant “ in his said office, thereby to shew him to he a proper a object for removal,” adjourned the case to the general court.

June 13, 1808. The court, consisting of judges Tyler, Nelson, White, Stuart, Brooke and Holmes, unanimously decided, “ that judgment of amotion from tin [158]*158“office of justice of the perfce ought to be rendered “ against the said John Alexander, and, that no further “ testimony is admissible before the district court.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE defendant was indicted at the District Court of Haymarket, “ for taking his seat as a justice of the “ peace in the county of Loudon, the 9th of August, 1803,* “ on the bench of the said county court, and acting as a “justice and member of the court then and there sitting, “ in giving his vote upon a judicial question and exami- “ nation at the time depending in the said court, and in “ signing the minutes of its proceedings as presiding “justice thereof, while he the said John Alexander was “ in a state of intoxication, from the drinking of spirit- “ ous liquors, which rendered him incompetent to the « discharge of his duty with decency, decorum, and día-[157]*157u cretion, and disqualified him from a fair and full exer- “ else of his understanding in matters and things at the “ time and place last mentioned judicially before him, to “ the great disgrace of the administration of public jus- “ tice; and to the evil example of persons in authority; “ whereby the said John Alexander was guilty of mis-behaviour in his office of justice of the peace in and “ for the said county of London, against the peace and u dignity of the commonwealth.”

The jury found the defendant guilty, and assessed his fine to fifty dollars. The attorney for the commonwealth moved for a j udgment for the fine, and also that the defendant be removed from his office of justice of the peace for the said county. The district court “ doubting “ whether it had authority to remove the defendant from “ his office aforesaid, and also whether evidence could be “ exhibited to the court after the discharge of the jury “ before whom the issue was tried, to prove the general “ ill conduct, and mal-administration of the defendant “ in his said office, thereby to shew him to he a proper a object for removal,” adjourned the case to the general court.

June 13, 1808. The court, consisting of judges Tyler, Nelson, White, Stuart, Brooke and Holmes, unanimously decided, “ that judgment of amotion from tin [158]*158“office of justice of the perfce ought to be rendered “ against the said John Alexander, and, that no further “ testimony is admissible before the district court.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Va. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-alexander-vagensess-1815.