
    The Commonwealth v. Willson.
    November, 1830.
    (Absent Stuabt, J.)
    Grand Jury — Qualification—Keeper of Ordinary — Who Is Not. — A. obtains atícense to keep an ordinary; A. opens a tavern under this license, and B. is his partner in the business; but A. alone resides at the tavern, and acts as keeper thereof: Held, B. is not the keeper of an ordinary, disqualified to serve on grand juries, within the meaning of the statute, 1 Rev. Code, ch. 72, § 2.
    ' This was a case adjourned from the circuit court of Eairfax.
    Willson was presented in that court at May term 1830, for retailing spirituous liquors without license. A rule was made upon him, returnable to September term 1830, to shew cause why an information should not be filed against him upon the presentment; and upon the return of the rule he alleged for cause, that W. B. Butler, one of the grand jury which made the presentment, was, at the time of making the same, keeper of an ordinary, and therefore, not a good grand juror. Whereupon, the following state of facts, was agreed:
    That in January 1830, the county court of Eairfax, granted to E. C. Butler, the brother of W. B. Butler, the *grand juror objected to, license to keep an ordinary; which license expired at May term 1830; when the license was renewed, to expire at May term 1831. Both of these licenses were regularly perfected in the manner required by law; and by virtue thereof, a tavern was opened and kept from the 11th January 1830. On the 6th April 1830, a joint advertisement of the said E. C. Butler and of the said W. B. Butler was published, which stated that they had opened a house of entertainment, where they were prepared to accommodate travelers and others; the advertisers recommend their house and their accommodations; and they both signed the advertisement and gave it circulation. But W. B. Butler did not reside at the tavern, though he was there occasionally. E. C. Butler resided there constantly, and acted as the tavern keeper.
    Upon this case agreed, sundry questions were adjourned to this court, and among others, the following: Whether the facts agreed were sufficient to prove or constitute the said W. B. Butler an ordinary keeper within the meaning of the statute which excludes ordinary keepers from serving or grand juries? See 1 Rev. Code, ch. 75, § 2, p. 264.
    
      
      See the principal case cited in foot-note to Com. v. Burcher, 2 Rob. 826.
      See generally, monographic note on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments" appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.
    
   BROCKENBROUGH, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court, That the facts agreed were not sufficient to constitute W. B. Butler an ordinary keeper, within the meaning of the statute.  