Commonwealth v. Feely
Opinion of the Court
THE prisoner was indicted at the Superior Court of law for Wythe county, in October, 1813. The indictment charged that the prisoner “ with force and arms "feloniously did steal, take, and carry away out of the “ mail of the. United States, three packages containing “ articles of value, one directed to Philadelphia, one to “ Pennsylvania, and one Northward, which packages had been delivered to Gardner L Grant, (who was mail “ carrier) to carry them from Wythe court-house to “ Montgomery court-house, contrary to the form of the « act of the congress of the United States, in such case « made and provided, and against the peace and dignity “ of the commonweath.” The prisoner was tried on this indictment, and found guilty by the jury.- He moved to
The superior court adjourned the case to the general court, on the following points.
“ 1st. Whether as the offence described in the indict- “ ment is created by an act of congress, this court being i% a state court, has jurisdiction thereof. 2d. Whether the “ offence created by the act of congress is a felony, or “ misdemesnor only. 3d. If the offence created by the act “ of congress be only a misdemesnor, can the court give “ a judgment on the indictment in this case, which charges “ the offence to have been feloniously committed. 4th. Is “ the indictment sufficient in this case to authorize the “ court to give a judgment thereon, as the particular “ articles of value contained in the packages mentioned a in the indictment are not set out and described. 3th. “ Is it necessary to be stated in the indictment that the “ packages contained articles of value, or is the offence
The general court, November 11th, 1813, consisting of judges White, Stuart, Brockenbrough, Semple, Allen, Randolph, Dabney and Daniel, entered the following judgment on their records. “ The court doth unanimously “ decide, that as the offence described in the indictment “ in this case, is created by an act of congress, the said “ superior court, being a state court, hath not jurisdiction u thereof; and that as a state court hath not jurisdiction “ of the said offence, it would be improper for this court “ to decide the other questions submitted to them in the “ said adjourned case.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.