
    *The Commonwealth v. Hatton.
    December Term, 1846.
    Criminal Proceedings — Defective Verdict — Retrial.— A prisoner having been tried for a felonions of-fence, and judgment Raving been arrested Re-cause tRe verdict against Rim was too uncertain and defective to authorize a judgment tRereon, it was Reid tRat, in tRis case, tRe prisoner might be again tried on the same indictment.
    The prisoner was indicted for feloniously and unlawfully shooting John S. Smith, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable and kill the said Smith. Upon the trial, the jury found a verdict that the prisoner is “guilty of unlawfully shooting John S. Smith, with intent to maim; and do condemn him to a service in the penitentiary for three years.” The clerk in recording the verdict, changed it, so as to make it' read in the usual form.
    When the prisoner was brought up to receive his sentence, he objected, that the Court should not proceed to give judgment against him, because the verdict was too uncertain and defective to warrant a judgment’ of conviction for felony. It being then ascertained that the verdict had not been recorded as it was delivered by the jury, and read to them as recorded by the Court, the Court ordered the entry of the verdict as recorded by the clerk to be set aside, and the verdict actually returned by the jury to be recorded. And the Court then sustained the motion of the prisoner, and awarded a venire facias de novo; and the prisoner was remanded to jail. But the clerk omitted to set aside the entry of the verdict by him recorded, and omitted to record the verdict actually found by the jury; so that in fact, as appears by the record, the verdict set aside was the verdict improperly entered by the clerk, instead of the one found by the jury.
    At the next term of the Court, when the prisoner was brought into Court to be again tried, he inoved the Court to discharge him from confinement, and from the crime with which he stood indicted, on the ground, that *having been tried on the indictment at the last term of the Court, and the Court having arrested the judgment on the verdict found, because the same was not sufficient'to warrant a.' judgment of attainder against him, he was not liable to be tried again for the same offence. Whereupon the Court stated the foregoing facts upon the record, and with the assent of the prisoner, adjourned to the General Court, for novelty and difficulty, the question: Can the prisoner be again tried on the said indictment?
    
      
      Tbe principal case is cited in Jones v. Com., 20 Gratt. 855. See foot-note to Nemo v. Com. 2 Gratt. 558.
    
   By the Court.

This Court, responding to the question adjourned to this Court, and confining itself only to the question, without deciding any other question that might arise on the record, were this Court sitting as a Court of Error upon the proceedings in the Circuit Court, doth certify as the opinion of this Court, that, in fulfilment and execution of the order which was made in the Circuit Court, awarding that a new trial should be had in this case, the prisoner can be again tried upon the said indictment.  