Commonwealth v. Ray

General Court of Virginia

Commonwealth v. Ray

1 Va. 262

DecidedJuly 1, 1815

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Va. 262 (Commonwealth v. Ray) 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. Ray, 1 Va. 262 (Va. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

THE defendants were jointly indicted in the Superior Court of law for Bedford county, for an assault and battery committed on T. Minor. They pleaded jointly “ not guilty,” and the jury found the following verdict. “ We of the jury find the defendants guilty and [263]*263*• assess their fine to one hundred dollars.” They moved to arrest the judgment for these reasons, “ that the husband and wife ought not to be joined in an indictment “ for the same offence. 2d. That joint damages-ought not “ to be assessed against two defendants, but that the jury “ ought to have assessed the amercement against earn, “ according to the degree of their offence.”

m¡ The case was adjourned on this motion, and the gene-» jjfral court, June 13th, 1812, present judges Nelson, White, m Stuart, Holmes, Brockenbrough,Semple, Johnston, Smith and Randolph, decided “ that the first reason alleged in arrest of judgment, is insufficient to arrest it, it being " lawful to join a husband and wife in such indictment; “ but that the second cause assigned is sufficient, because si the fine ought to be assessed against each defendant separately.” m

See 1st Call, p. 555. Jones vs. The Commonwealth.

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

THE defendants were jointly indicted in the Superior Court of law for Bedford county, for an assault and battery committed on T. Minor. They pleaded jointly “ not guilty,” and the jury found the following verdict. “ We of the jury find the defendants guilty and [263]*263*• assess their fine to one hundred dollars.” They moved to arrest the judgment for these reasons, “ that the husband and wife ought not to be joined in an indictment “ for the same offence. 2d. That joint damages-ought not “ to be assessed against two defendants, but that the jury “ ought to have assessed the amercement against earn, “ according to the degree of their offence.”

m¡ The case was adjourned on this motion, and the gene-» jjfral court, June 13th, 1812, present judges Nelson, White, m Stuart, Holmes, Brockenbrough,Semple, Johnston, Smith and Randolph, decided “ that the first reason alleged in arrest of judgment, is insufficient to arrest it, it being " lawful to join a husband and wife in such indictment; “ but that the second cause assigned is sufficient, because si the fine ought to be assessed against each defendant separately.” m

See 1st Call, p. 555. Jones vs. The Commonwealth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Va. 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ray-vagensess-1815.