§ 27. No free negro shall migrate" into this State. If a free negro, not authorized by law to do so, come into or remain in this State, any person may, and every sheriff, sergeant and constable is required to, apprehend and carry him before some justice of the county or corporation where he may be, who shall require him to pay one dollar to the person apprehending him, and give bond in a penalty not less than one hundred dollars, with condition that he will leave the State in ten days and not return therein; such bond shall be returned by the justice to the court of his county or corporation. If the free negro fail to pay the fee aforesaid, or to give such bond, he may, by order of the justice, be punished with stripes, 19 which may, by subsequent order of a justice, be repeated, from time to time, so long as the negro remains in the State; but this section shall not apply to a free negro driven by shipwreck, or other unavoidable necessity, into this State, who shall depart therefrom as soon as he can, nor one employed on a vessel or steamboat, or as a servant, as mentioned in the preceding section, if he do not remain in the State longer than thirty days. (Acts 1840-41, p. 83, ch. 74, § 5; 1847-8, p. 119, § 36. C. V. 1850, ch. 198, § 28. Id. 1860, § 32.)

18 The offence of a free negro in coming into the State and remaining therein, in violation of the 27th section of this chapter, is a misdemeanor, for which he is liable to be prosecuted and punished in the manner provided in said section. Morris ex parte, 11 Gratt. 292.

Upon conviction of such a misdemeanor the party is entitled, as of right, under the 15th section of ch. 211 of the Code, to an appeal from the justice's decision to the court of the county or corporation in which his conviction was held. And it is the duty of the justice to allow the appeal, if duly applied for, and if refused by him, the party may have relief by mandamus from the circuit court. If the circuit court refuse to issue a mandamus in such a case, the party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals for a supersedeas or writ of error, and have the action of the circuit court reviewed and corrected by that court. Ibid.

19 All acts and parts of acts imposing on negroes the penalty of stripes, where the same penalty is not imposed on white persons, are repealed. Acts 1866, p. 84-5, ch. 17.

Crediting Students.

Frauds by tobacco inspectors; and on election laws.

§ 28. If a free person so violate the first section 20 of chapter one hundred and forty-two, as to be liable to the forfeiture thereby declared, he shall, moreover, be fined not less than fifty nor more than three hundred dollars, and, upon conviction, he shall be bound by the court in a sum not less than five hundred dollars, with at least two sufficient sureties, to be of good behavior for a year, and any subsequent violation of the section aforesaid shall be held to be a forfeiture of the recognizance. (Acts 1838, p. 30, § 2, 3; 1847-8, p. 130, § 41. C. V. 1850, ch. 198, § 34. Acts 1850-51, p. 34, § 17. C. V. 1860, ch. 198, § 37.

§ 29. If an inspector of tobacco issue, or cause to be issued, his receipt or note for any tobacco not received into the warehouse of which he is inspector, or more than one receipt or note for the same tobacco, except when authorized by law to do so, or re-issue or pass away a tobacco receipt or note, after the delivery of the tobacco for which it was given, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than five years. (2 R. C. p. 157, § 44. Acts

20 The first section of ch. 142 of the Code of Virginia is as follows: "If any money be lent or advanced, or any thing be sold or let to hire on credit, to or for the use of any student or pupil, under twenty-one years of age, at the Virginia Military Institute, University of Virginia, or any incorporated college in this State, without the previous permission in writing of his parent or guardian, or the authorized officers of such institution, nothing shall be recovered therefor, and there shall moreover be forfeited to the institution twenty dollars, and the amount or value of such money or other thing. Where such selling, letting, lending or advancing is by an agent, such forfeiture shall be by his principal, unless the principal shall within ten days after he has knowledge or information of the selling, letting, lending or advancing, give notice in writing of the date, nature and amount thereof to the president or other head of the institution, in which case the forfeiture shall be by the agent. This section shall not apply to a person selling or letting in expectation of immediate payment, if he shall within ten days thereafter give notice in writing of the date, nature or amount of the sale or letting to such president or other head."

1847-8, p. 121, § 42. C. V. 1850, ch. 198, § 35. Id. 1860, § 39.)

§ 30. If any free person, directly or indirectly, give to a voter, in any election, any money, goods or chattels, under an agreement, express or implied, that such voter shall give his vote for a particular candidate, such person shall be punished by fine not less than twenty nor more than one hundred dollars. And the voter receiving such money, goods or chattels in pursuance of such agreement, shall be punished in like manner with the person giving the same. (C. V. 1850, ch. 198, § 38. Id. 1860, § 40.)

Importing convicts and slaves.

§ 31. If a master of a vessel or other person, knowingly, import or bring into this State, from any place out of the United States, any person convicted of crime, or any slave" sold and transported beyond the limits of this State for crime, he shall be confined in jail for three months, and be fined one hundred dollars. (1 Hen. Stat. p. 509; 12 Hen. Stat. p. 668, ch. 12. 1 R. C. p. 68, ch. 24, § 1, 2. C. V. 1850, ch. 198, § 39. Id. 1860, § 41.)

" All acts and parts of acts relating to slaves and slavery, repealed. Acts 1866, ch. 17, p. 84-5.

§ 1. If there be complaint on oath,' that personal property has been stolen, embezzled or obtained by false pretences, and that it is believed to be concealed in a particular house, or other place, the justice or justices to whoni com

I The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Am. to Const. U. S. art. 4. See 2 Hale 113, 150; 2 Wils. 283, 291; 11 State Tr. 321; Archb. Cr. Prac, & Pl., 8th edi., top p. 143.

It is not necessary for an officer, in order to justify the execution of a search warrant from a magistrate having jurisdiction over the subject, to shew that it was founded on a complaint under oath, provided the warrant itself contains an allegation of the fact. Sandford v. Nichols, 13 Mass. 236. And it has even been held, that although the search warrant does not appear to have been issued on oath, the officer is justified in executing it, if the subject-matter be within the magistrate's jurisdiction. State v. Mann, 5 Iredell 45.

2 The oath need not positively and directly aver that the property has been stolen; Else v. Smith, 1 Dow. & R. 97; or that the offence, which is the ground of the application, has been actually committed. Mayo's Guide to Mag. 609.

The place must be particularly designated, and the property be particularly described in the warrant, 1 Archb. Cr. Prac. & Pl., 7th edi., top p. 143-4; 1 Nun. & Walsh 255; 2 Hale 150; 2 Hawk. ch. 13, § 10, 17. General warrants to search suspected places, are illegal and void, both by the common law and our Bill of Rights. 2 Hale 113, 150; Va. Bill of Rights, § 10. The warrant ought also to name the person in whose building the

plaint is made, if satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such belief, shall issue a warrant to search such place for the property. (Acts 1847-8, p. 160, ch. 25, § 1, 2; 1866– 7, p. 921, § 1.)

stolen property is supposed to be. Stone v. Dana, 6 Metc. 98; Com. v. Dana, 2 Id. 329. A search warrant, commanding an officer to search the premises of B. P. Tuell, does not authorize the officer to search the premises of Benjamin P. Tuell. Knell v. Wrink, 6 Blackf, 249. If the house be described as the house of a company, such description will not authorize the searching of the house of an individual member of the company. Sanford v. Nichols, 13 Mass. 286. And if the goods be described in general terms, as goods, wares and merchandize, without any specification of their character, quality, number or weight, or any other circumstance tending to distinguish them, it is not such a particular description as the Constitution requires. Ibid.

Where the description in the complaint was "the premises of Hiram Ide and Henry Ide," it was held that the place was not described with sufficient particularity; and that, although the complainant afterwards, in his prayer for process, prayed that process might issue to search the "houses and buildings" of Hiram Ide and Henry Ide, yet that this description did not aid the defendant in the stating part of the complaint. Humes v. Tabor, 1 Rhode Island Rep. 464. A warrant to search the dwelling-house of a person will confer an authority to search the house in which he dwells, but not the houses which he owns and rents to other persons. Id.

If a search warrant, and the complaint on which it is issued be on the same paper, and the things to be searched for be properly designated and described in the complaint, and the warrant direct the officer to search for the things "mentioned in the above complaint," the process is legal and sufficient, without any further designation or description of the things in the warrant itself. Com. v. Dana, 2 Metc. 329.

A warrant cannot be issued to search for and seize goods charged to be stolen, in the possession of a person who obtained them innocently, without any knowledge of their being stolen. A sale, however, of stolen goods

does not change the property in them, and they may be recovered of the purchaser by the owner in a civil suit. Ibid; 1 Archb. Cr. Prac. & Pl., 7th edi., top p. 144, note.

In the execution of the warrant, the officer to whom it is directed must strictly observe its instructions; for a warrant directing a search in a particular house only, will not justify a search in another; nor will a warrant to seize one kind of goods, justify him in seizing another. Price v. Messenger, 2 Bos. & Pul. 158; 3 Esp. Rep. 96.

Where the constable, having a warrant to search for specific articles alleged to have been stolen, found and took away those and certain others supposed to be also stolen, but not mentioned in the warrant, and not likely