
    Attorney General v. Broaddus and Wife.
    
    Decided, Feb. 17th, 1818.
    i. Statute — Incestuous Marriages — Constitutionality. 
    
    —A prosecution under the 13th section of the Act of 1792, concerning- incestuous marriages, was a criminal prosecution; and therefore, it seems, the direction therein, that such prosecution should be instituted in the High Court of Chancery, was unconstitutional. 
    
    In this case, a petition was presented to this Court by Philip Norborne Nicholas Attorney General of the Commonwealth, on behalf of said Commonwealth, to be allowed an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond District, dismissing a bill exhibited by the Petitioner against Andrew Broad-dus and Jane C. Broaddus, in conformity with the 13th section of the Act of 1792, concerning incestuous marriages; edition of 1794, 1803 and 1814, p. 195. The Bill charged the Defendants with having unlawfully intermarried; the said Jane C. being a sister of the said Andrew’s former wife; and prayed the Court of Chancery to decree the nullity of the said marriage, and make such farther decree in the premises, as the Act of Assembly required, and as a regard for the laws and public morals might demand and justify.
    The defendants put in a plea denying the constitutionality of the said Act of Assembly; because the same was contrary to the 8th section of the Bill of Rights, being a penal statute, and the information or bill exhibited under it by the Attorney General being a criminal prosecution.
    On these grounds, Chancellor Taylor dismissed the Bill.
    
      
       For the opinion of the court in this case, see 6 Munf. 111.
    
    
      
       Court of Appeals — Criminal Jurisdiction. — To the point that the court of appeals has no criminal jurisdiction, the principal case is cited in foot-note to Bedinger v. Com., 3 Call, -161; Com. v. Scott, i Rand. 147, 151; White v. King, 5 Heigh 737.
    
    
      
       Note. The jurisdiction given by that section to the Court of Chancery, has since been transferred to the Superior Courts of law: see Acts of 1817. c. 18; R. Code of 1819, c. 106, § 17, 18, vol. 1st, p. 399. — Note in Original Edition.
    
   The Court of Appeals, considering the decree as involving a constitutional question, granted the appeal, but, after argument by Peyton Randolph and Nicholas for '•'the appellant, and Leigh for the appellees, dismissed it as improvidently awarded; this Court having no jurisdiction in criminal cases. 
      
       See Bedinger v. the Commonwealth, 3 Call, 461-475.
     