hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
The Daily Dispatch: October 17, 1862., [Electronic resource] 2 0 Browse Search
The Daily Dispatch: October 18, 1862., [Electronic resource] 2 0 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 4 results in 2 document sections:

The Daily Dispatch: October 17, 1862., [Electronic resource], Proceedings in the Courts. (search)
as shot in one of the useful members he employed on the occasion. Being brought to Richmond he was sold for a trifling consideration to a man who wan taking him South, when his true master see him by in the had him concealed himself and was in by enough to remain perdue for some time; turing to Salisbury, N. C., his whereabouts became known to officer Scale, of this city, who went thith- er and arrested him. The Court sent him on for trial before Judge Lyons. In the case of Casper Marston and others, members of the Richmond Typographical Society, on a motion to quash an information filed against them by the Commonwealth, at the instance of John M. Daniel, proprietor of the Examiner newspaper, for the alleged offence of conspiring together as printers to extort money from said Daniel, defendants' counsel, Nance & Williams, moved the Court to proceed with the trial. Said motion being on its hearing, was opposed by Gilmer and Daniel, prosecuting attorneys, and sustained by
The Daily Dispatch: October 18, 1862., [Electronic resource], Proceedings in the courts. (search)
Proceedings in the courts. Hustings Court, Oct. 17th. --Present; Richard D. Sanzay, Senior Alderman; Jas. Bray., W. W. Timbericke, Chas, E Anderson and Geo. N. Gwathmeye, Aldermen: Yesterday was devoted by the Court to the hearing of pleadings on the motion submitted by Messrs, Sands and Nance, to quash the rule leads against Casper Marston and other members of the Richmond Typographical Society, to show stress why an information should not be filed against them for conspiring together as printers to extort of John M. Daniel, proprietor of the paper. Counsel for defendants concluded that the presentment made against the Parisians and can thrown out of Court by nolle prosequi in the first instance, because of some informality. The Commonwealth's Attorney could not elect of his commotion to continue the prosecution by information, but must go back and have a new indictment found. This view of the was opposed by Mr. Gilmer, for the prosecution who rent many authoriti