Richardson v. Commonwealth

Citations

• 76 Va. 1007
• 1882 Va. LEXIS 100

Syllabus

<p>1. Criminal Proceedings—Grand juries.—Plea in abatement will not lie to an indictment, for that the court, if a sufficient number of the jurors summoned are not in attendance, causes the required number to be returned from the county at large. Nor for that two or more of the grand jury which found the indictment, had served on another grand jury at the same term. How they voted on the indictment as members of the first grand jury, could not properly be inquired into. Nor for that the sheriff or his deputy were in the grand jury’s room, when they were deliberating and examining witnesses, upon whose testimony the indictment was found.</p> <p>2. Idem—Instructions—Case at bar.—At trial of indictment for selling liquor by retail in quantities less than one gallon, under Acts 1879-80, ch. 155, §12, p. 151, the jury asked of the court the question—“Asa distiller, has the defendant a right to sell one gallon of liquor, and receive pay therefor, and deliver it in less quantities at different times?” To which the jury received for answer—“The court doth instruct the jury that to constitute a sale by the gallod, there must be a sale and delivery to the buyer of an entire gallon; that a contract for a gallon, and the delivery of the same in parcels at different times, is a violation of the law.”</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The instruction correctly expound the law. Sales of liquor in the mode suggested in the question of the jury, would be mere shifts to violate the statute.</p>