Ashlock v. Commonwealth

Citations

• 108 Va. 877
• 61 S.E. 752
• 1908 Va. LEXIS 110

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Law — Erroneous Continuance. — Erroneously continuing a criminal ease furnishes no ground for reversing a judgment of conviction rendered against the accused at a subsequent term.</p> <p>2. Venire Eacias — Irregularities—Motion After Verdict. — Under the express terms of 4018 of the Code (1904) objections to a writ of venire facias on account of irregularity in drawing the names of persons to serve, come too late after verdict.</p> <p>3. Venire Eacias — Draining Names — Deputy Clerk as Commissioner in Chancery — Failure to List Name Drawn. — The commissioner in chancery in whose presence the jurors in a criminal case may be drawn in the absence of the judge, should not be the deputy of the clerk who draws them, nor has the clerk the right to leave off the list of persons drawn by him the name of »any person drawn who is not embraced within the classes designated by section 4018 of the Code. If any person whose name is drawn from the box is, for any other cause, not a competent person to sit on the jury, that is a question for the court and not for the clerk.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Letters—Evidence of Authenticity — Internal Evidence. — A letter not shown to be in the handwriting of the party to be affected by it may sometimes be looked into for internal evidence of authenticity, and such internal evidence may be sufficient to justify the court in permitting the letter to go to the jury, but the general rule is that the mere contents of a letter' purporting to be that of a particular person are not of themselves sufficient evidence of its genuineness. The best evidence rule would generally require proof of the genuineness of the signature.</p>