or another grand jury." (Acts 1847-8, id. 1866-7, p. 926, § 9; 1870, ch. 397, p. 552, § 10. § 11. If the foreman or any grand juror be unable or fail to attend, after being sworn, another may be sworn in his Prac. and Pl., 7th edi., 1860, top p. 329, note. Where there are several counts, however, the practice is different, as they can find any one count and ignore the others. 1 Chitty Cr. Law 323; Bac. Abr. Indictment D; 1 Archb. Cr. Prac. and Pl., 7th edi., top p. 329, note. So in an indictment against several, they can distinguish among the defendants, and find as to some, and reject as to the rest. 2 Hale 158; 1 Chitty Cr. Law 323; Whart. Am. Cr. Law § 504, If the finding be incomplete or insensible, it is bad. 2 Hawk, ch. 25, § 2; 1 Chitty Cr. Law 328. It must be absolute and unconditional. Yelv. 15; Hawk. b. 2, ch. 35, § 2; Bac. Abr. Indictment D; Com. Dig. Indictmeni A. Where the grand jury returned a bill of indictment which contained ten counts for forging and uttering the acceptance of a bill of exchange, with an endorsement, "a true bill on both counts," and the prisoner pleaded to the whole ten counts, and after the case for the prosecution had concluded, the prisoner's counsel pointed this out, the finding was held bad, and the grand jury being discharged, the judge would not allow one of the grand jurors to be called as a witness to explain their finding. R. v. Cooke, 8 Car. and P. 582; see People v. Hubbard, 4 Denio 133. 9 This section is suggested by the case of R. v. Humphreys, 1 Car. and Marshm. 601, 41 Eng. Com. Rep. 327. There a bill of indictment charging burglary was sent, on the 19th of March, to the grand jury, and they, having examined all the witnesses whose names were on the bill, except two who did not answer when called, ignored the bill. Two days afterwards, another bill of indictment, precisely similar to that ignored before, was sent to the grand jury, upon which the foreman came into court and asked the judge what the grand jury ought to do, as they were informed that the two witnesses who were absent when the former bill was before them, were now in attendance. Patteson, J. said—“ When I was first informed of this matter by the proper officer, I inclined to think that a second bill might be sent before you, but on further consideration, I think it cannot. If the grand jury at the assizes or sessions have ignored a bill, they cannot find another bill against the same person for the same offence, at the same assizes or sessions. It is laid down in the books of practice that it cannot be done, though I know of no express case on the subject; and I think it would lead to great inconvenience if it could be done. I think that you ought not to ignore this second bill, and you cannot find it, and that the proper course is for you not to take any further notice of it." Rep, Rev. C. V. p. 1009, note. 10 stead, and when one grand jury has been discharged, another may, by order of the court, be summoned to attend at the same term. (Acts 1847-8, p. 141, § 10, 12; 1866–7, p. 926, § 10; 1870, p. 552, § 11. 10 On first day of term of a circuit superior court, a grand jury is empanneled and sworn, and proceeds in discharge of its duties; but next day, it is discovered that one of the grand jurors wants legal qualification; upon which the court discharges him, and orders another to be sworn in his place. This was regular, and the grand jury duly constituted. Com. v. Burton, 4 Leigh 645. When the grand jury are in session, they are completely under the control. of the court, and the court may, at any time, re-commit an imperfect finding to them, or may poll them, or take any other method, on the suggestion of a defendant, of determining whether twelve assented to the bill. State v. Squire, 2 New Hamp. R. 558; Lewis' case, 4 Greenleaf's Ref. 448. The grand jury, in performing the duties of their office, in general hear evidence only in support of the charge, and not in exculpation of the ac cused; the finding of the indictment, or a presentment, being only in the nature of an accusation which is to be afterwards tried and determined. 2 Hale 157; 4 Black. Com. 303: 1 Dal. R. 236; Hawk. b. 2, c. 25, 145, in notes; 1 Archb. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 7th edi. top p. 323, in notes; 3 Rob. Prac. (old edi.) 94. But as they are sworn to present the truth, the ascertainment of which requires investigation, if they are not able to obtain the truth from the witnesses for the prosecution, and they are convinced of that, it seems they may properly seek from other witnesses information as to mere facts; though, generally, they have no concern with any other testimony than that which is regularly offered with the indictment, having only to determine whether there be sufficient ground to put the accused upon his trial. 1 Chitty Cr. Law 318; Davis' Cr. Law 425 ; Dick. J., Indictment, IV; Dick. Sess. 117; Burn. J., Indictment, V. They ought, however, to be thoroughly persuaded of the guilt of the accused, so far as their evidence goes, and not rest satisfied merely with remote probabilities. 4 Black. Com. 303; 4 State Trials 183; 3 Inst. 23; 1 Archb. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 7th edi. top p. 325, in notes; Davis' Cr. Law 425-6. The testimony given before them must of course be upon oath, and must be legal evidence, Davis' Cr. Law 426. And if the jury have any doubt with respect to the propriety of admitting any part of the evidence offered to them, they may pray the advice of the court which is sitting. Hawk., b. 2, ch. 26, § 145, in notes; Dalt. J., ch. 185, § 9; 3 Harg. State Trials 417; 4 Black. Com. 303, n. 1; 2 Hale 159, 160. When the grand jury return into court, the officer usually accompanies them; but his being with them is not considered necessary. The clerk, addressing them on their return, says: § 12. A court, whose officer shall fail, when it is his duty to summon a grand jury, and return a list of their names, shall fine him twenty dollars. A person summoned, and failing to attend a court as a grand juror, shall be fined by said He then calls over the names, the sheriff counting those who answer. If all answer, the clerks asks the foreman the following questions: 66 Have you agreed upon any bills of indictment or presentment ?” "Yes." "Are you content that the court shall amend form, not altering matter of substance?" "Yes." The clerk then receives the bills, and reads the endorsements with the finding of the grand jury on each, as follows: "A bill of indictment against J. C. for murder—a true bill. "A bill of indictment against B. H, for horse-stealing-not a true bill, &c. 3 Rob. Prac. (old edi.) 96–97. See Whart. Am. Cr. Law, (4th edi.) § 500. The entry upon the order book, of a circuit court, of the finding of bills and presentments, is to this effect: "A. B. gent. foreman, C. D., &c. were sworn, and E. F. and G. H. were charged, a grand jury of inquest for the body of this county, and having received their charge, withdrew, and after some time returned into court and presented "A bill of indictment against J. C. for murder—a true bill. "A bill of indictment against B. H. for horse-stealing-not a true bill. "They also made the following presentments:" (Here they are recorded at large.) 3 Rob. Paac. (old edi.) 97. When a bill of indictment is found by the grand jury, and endorsed "a true bill" by the foreman, it should be brought into court, presented by the grand jury, and then the finding shall be recorded. An omission to record the finding, cannot be supplied by a paper purporting to be an indictment with an endorsement "a true bill," signed by the person who was the foreman of the grand jury at that term. Nor can it be supplied by the recital in the record, that he stands indicted, nor by his arraignment, nor by his plea of not guilty. It cannot be intended that he was indicted; it must be shewn by the record of the finding. The recording of the finding of the grand jury is as essential, as the recording of the verdict of a petit jury. The Com. v. Cawood, 2 Va. Cas. 527. Record states, that two indictments against surveyors of roads are found true bills by grand jury, not naming the surveyors: Held, this is not a record of indictments found against any particular surveyors. The Com. v. Snider, 2 Leigh 744. The record of the finding of an indictment for retailing ardent spirits without license, states that the grand jury presented an indictment against court not less than five dollars, unless, after being summoned to show cause against the fine, he give a reasonable excuse for his failure. (Acts 1866-7, p. 926, § 11; 1870, p. 553, § 12.) § 13. This act shall be in force from and after the first day of December, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy. W. T. for retailing liquors, a true bill: This is sufficient. Tefft v. Com., 8 Leigh 721. A grand jury find an indictment against C. and D., but the clerk in making a minute of the finding, accidently omits the name of D.: Held, 1. That the record cannot be amended at a subsequent term of the court by inserting the name of D. in the minute; and the indictment against D. must be quashed. 2. The minute stating that the indictment is found against C., that is a sufficient record of the finding the indictment against C. Drake & Cochren's case, 6 Gratt. 665. In a county or corporation court, from the necessity of the case, the presentments are introduced in the minutes by extracting merely the commencing words; it being left to the clerk, when he writes up the orders after the adjournment of the court, to spread the same in extenso on the order book. The sufficiency of an entry in this manner upon the minutes of a county or corporation court was decided in the case of Myers v. The Com., 2 Va. Cas. 160. After naming the grand jury and rendering the finding a bill of indictment, the entry on the minute book was as follows:"And the said grand jury also made the following presentment:" "We the jurors, &c.," and following thereafter, this order: "Ordered that Joshua Myers, who was this day presented by the grand jury, be summoned to appear here at May court next, to answer the said presentment." Upon being summoned to answer this presentment, Myers pleaded that there was not any record of the same. The General Court decided that there was such record; considering that the minutes obviously referred to the written presentment made by the grand jury, and that the presentment itself was thereby made a part of the records of the court. 3 Rob, Prac. (old edi.) 98–99. What is a sufficient entry on the record of the finding of an indictment for a misdemeanor by a grand jury. See Nutter's case, 8 Gratt. 699. When in any case the return of the grand jury is "not a true bill," the prisoner is set to the bar, and the clerk tells the sheriff to make proclamation. The sheriff thereupon makes proclamation as follows: "Oyez, &c. If any can inform the Judge of this court, or the attorney for the Commonwealth, of any treason, murder, felony, or other misdemeanor committed or done by A. B., the prisoner at the bar, let them come forth, and they shall be heard. The prisoner stands at the bar upon his deliverance." The clerk then asks the attorney if he has any thing further to allege against the prisoner; and he if says no, the clerk tells the jailor to discharge him. 3 Rob. Pr. (old edi.) 99; Rob. Forms (old edi.) 213. § 1. Any white person who, being married,' shall, during the life of the former husband or wife, marry another person 1 In case of bigamy what is evidence of marriage, see 3 Rob. Prac. (old edi.) 192-195; Warner v. Com,, 2 Va. Cas. 95; C. V. ch. 108, p. 470, § 8; Id. ch. 176, p. 663, § 16; Wharton's Am. Cr. Law (4th edi.) § 2631-2634; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 461 ; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 204–206; Bishop on Marriage and Div. ch. 17; Truman's case, 1 East P. C. 470. The proof of marriage, as of other issues, is either by direct evidence, establishing the fact, or by evidence of collateral facts and circumstances, from which its evidence may be inferred. Evidence of the former kind, or what is equivalent to it, is required upon the trial of indictments for polygamy and adultery, and in actions for criminal conversation; (Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2059; Leader v. Barry, 1 Esp. 353; Com. v. Norcross, 9 Mass. 492; Com. v. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163; The People v. Humphrey, 7 Johns. 314;) but in all other cases, any other satisfactory evidence is sufficient. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 461. In regard to the first marriage, it is sufficient to prove that a marriage in fact was celebrated, according to the laws of the country in which it took place; and this, even though it were voidable; provided it were not absolutely void. 3 Id. § 204. In proof of the second marriage, the same kind of evidence is admissible as in proof of the first. But it must distinctly appear, that it was a mar |