
    Anderson v. The Commonwealth.
    July, 1834.
    Criminal Law-Court of Oyer and Terminer — Writ of Error. — A writ of error does not lie from the general court to a judgment of a county or corporation court, sitting as a court of oyer and terminer, in -a criminal prosecution under the statute of 1831-2. ch. 22, § 11.
    Same— Same — Same. —Qutere, whether a writ of error lies to such judgment from the circuit supe-riour court?
    Petition for a writ of error to a judgment of the corporation court of Petersburg. Anderson, a free negro, was tried for larceny in that court, sitting as a court of oyer and terminer, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. He was prosecuted and tried in the same manner as slaves are prosecuted and tried for the like offences, according to the provisions of the statute of 1831-2, ch. 22, | 11. (See the cases of Weldon and others, ante.) And now he presented a petition to-this court, complaining of irregularities in the trial, and praying a writ of error.
    Allison, for the petitioner.
    
      
      To the point that the general court has no jurisdiction to award a writ of error to a judgment of the hustings court, the principal case was cited in Abrahams v. Com., 11 Leigh 676.
    
   MAY, J.

The court cannot look into the alleged errors. There are two preliminary inquiries: Whether a writ of error lies to the proceedings of the county or corporation courts sitting as courts of oyer and terminer? And if so, whether it may be allowed by this court, or must be by the circuit superiour court of Petersburg?

*The court, without deciding any other question, is of opinion, that a writ of error does not lie from this court to the county or corporation courts. 1 Rev. Code, ch. 67, § 26, p. 224.

Writ of error denied.  