
    The Commonwealth v. Alexander.
    June Term, 1808.
    1. Justice of Peace — Removal from Office — Misbe-haviour. — A justice of the peace may be amerced and removed from office, upon an information against him, in a Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction, for misbehaviour in office.
    2. Same — Same—Same—intoxication.—Being1 intoxicated with spirituous liquors, while in the discharge of his oficial duties, is a sufficient misbehaviour, for which a Justice of the Peace ought to be amerced and removed from office.
    3.Same — Same—Same—Same.—In such case the jury’s finding the defendant “guilty.” is sufficient to authorize the judgment of amotion from office; but no farther testimony is admissible before the Court after the discharge of the Jury.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Justices of the Peace” appended to Wallace v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 130.
    
   This was an adjourned case from the District Court of Haymarket, upon an information and verdict against John Alexander, a Justice of the Peace, in the county of Loudoun, for taking his seat (the 9th of August, 1803) “on the bench of the said County Court, and acting as a justice and member of the Court then and there sitting, in giving his vote upon a judicial question and examination at the time depending in the said Court, and in signing the minutes of its proceedings, as presiding Justice thereof, while he the said John Alexander was in a state of intoxication, from the drinking of spirituous liquors, which rendered him incompetent to the discharge of his duty with decency, decorum and discretion, and disqualified him from a fair and full exercise of his understanding in matters and things, at the time and place last mentioned, judicially brought before him, to the great disgrace of the administration of public justice, and to the evil example of persons in authority; whereby the said John Alexander was guilty of misbehaviour in his office of Justice of the Peace, in and for the said County of Loudoun, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.”

The Jury found the defendant “guilty,” and amerced him in the sum of fifty dollars. On the motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth for a judgment against the defendant for the amount of the amercement, and also for judgment that the defendant be removed from his office of Justice of the Peace, for the county of Loudoun, the District Court, “doubting whether it had authority to remove the defendant from his office aforesaid, and also whether evidence could be exhibited to the Court, after the discharge of the Jury before whom the issue was tried, to prove the general ill conduct and mal-administration of the defendant in his *said office, thereby to shew him to be a proper object for removal,” adjourned the.case to the General Court, for the novelty and difficulty of the said questions.

And now, at a General Court, holden at the Capitol, in the City of Richmond, on the thirteenth day of June, 1808, Present, JOHN TYLER, ROBERT WHITE, jun. FRANCIS T. BROOKE, HUGH HOLMES, ARCHIBALD STUART, and WILLIAM NELSON, Judges, the following opinion was entered on the points submitted.

“It is the unanimous opinion of this Court, that judgment of amotion from the office of Justice of the Peace ought to be rendered against the said John Alexander, and that no further testimony is admissible before the District Court.”

“Which is ordered to be certified to the District Court, holden at Haymarket.”  