
    Marshall’s Case.
    The General Court having, upon a writ of error to that Court, reversed the judgment of the Court below, and directed a new trial, that judgment is conclusive, and neither the Court below, nor the General Court on a second writ of error, can enquire into the correctness of the first decision.
    This is the same case which was before this Court at the June term, when a new trial was directed on the second count of the indictment. See supra, p. 663. When the case went back, the prisoner moved the Court to discharge him from further prosecution, on the ground that he had been once tried and convicted for the same offence, and the judgment of the Court had been arrested ; but the Court overruled the motion, and directed a writ of venire de novo; and the prisoner excepted.
    When the case was brought on for trial, the prisoner offered a plea of “ once in jeopardy,” and also a plea of “autrefois convict,” in which he relied on the same facts occurring on the former trial and in this Court; but the Court rejected the pleas, and he again excepted.
    On the trial the jury found the prisoner guilty, and fixed the term of his imprisonment in the county jail at one year; whereupon, he applied to this Court for a writ of error.
    Gilmer, for the prisoner.
   By the Court.

The writ of error is refused. The Court has not deemed it necessary to consider the question which was discussed, as to the propriety of the General Court, at the last term, directing the prisoner to be tried on the second count of the indictment, instead of discharging him; because, whether right or not, the decision was final, and is beyond our control.  