
    Pitman Hill v. The Commonwealth.
    Criminal Proceedings — Discontinuance.—The omission to continue a Cause, in which there was a Verdict, on the Records of a County Court for two Quarterly Terms, is no discontinuance of the Prosecution.
    This was an adjourned Case from the Fau-quier Superior Court. The Defendant had been presented by the Grand Jury of the County Court for retailing spirituous liquors. The Presentment was made at March Term, 1810. He was regularly proceeded against by Information, each Term of the Court, till November, 1810, when there was a Special Verdict found against him, and the Cause then continued till next Term. At the next Quarterly Term, in March, 1811, there was no continuance of the Case, nor was it noticed in the orders of the Court. The same omission occurred at June Term; but at August Term it was ^continued, and at November Term, 1811, judgment was rendered on the Verdict, against the Defendant, who obtained this Writ of Error from the Superior Court. The question adjourned was, “Did the adjournment of the County Court at the Quarterly Sessions for the month of March, 1811, without entering a continuance of the said Case on the Record, operate a discontinuance of the prosecution ?”
    
      
      Criminal Proceedings — Discontinuance.—The adjournment of a court without awarding any process, on an indictment found by the grand, jury, is no discontinuance of the prosecution. Com. v. Gourd, 2 Va. Cas. 470, citing principal case, and Varner v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 62. See the same cases cited in Harrison v. Com., 81 Va. 494. For further authority on this subject, see monographic note on “Continuances” appended to Harman v. Howe, 27 Gratt. 676. And see Va. Code 1887, §4013.
    
   PER CURIAM.

“This Court is unanimously of opinion, that the adjournment of the County Court of Eauquier, at the Quarterly Sessions for the month of March, 1811, without entering a continuance of this Cause on its Records, did not operate a discontinuance of the prosecution.”  