
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1810.
    The State v. Sarah Riely.
    If the indictee, for a capital offence, be acquitted by the verdict of a juty, a new trial will not be granted on the part of the State.
    The defendant ivas indicted before Smith, J., in Edgefield dis. trict, for murdering her bastard child. The jury found the defendant not guilty, but the judge being of opinion the evidence au. thorized a different verdict, refused to discharge her; aad now this motion, on the part of the State for a new trial, was argued by Stark, the Circuit Solicitor, who contended, that a now trial m such case might properly he granted lor the State, as well es for the prisoner. Cited 2 Haw. P. ‘ J. 30t>, as where the i try act. cor-t c. f • „ . . 4 , ruptly. So also in any other case where justice has not been done. New trials have succeeded "to the old doctrine of attai it. It is necessary to avoid the til consequences of undue aequitiais. 2 flaw. P. C. 536, sec. 15. Fast. C. L. 241.
    
      IVjte. See Bay’s Rep. State v. Hopkins. 6 Ban. Abr. 674, fifth ed. of 1798. 4 T. R 753. 5 do. 19. 2 Hayw. Rep. 162. 2 T. R. 484. 6 blast. 316, refused after acquittal for misdemeanor.
   The Court,

Gp-niKK, Watuss, Lay, and Harvard,

refused a new trial, being of opinion it would bo contrary to the humanity of the law, and mislu be productive of consequences dangerous to the rights of individuals. That it would he grievously oppressive, to grant new trials iu cases of acquittaf, in criminal cases.

Motion rejected.  