Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-02

ton, brought a suit in the chancery court
oil Richmpnd, TO compel the pitt. To make
a conveyance. He was Immediately war
ned, that knowing as he and Snced did
the PITTS. prior purchase and possession, if
they pcrsevered IN combination so Eau-
dulent and understandable, the pltf. would
not he merely defensive, but would put III
exercise ali the means of opposition which
the laws had given him, and particularly
would inlorce that statute of the Virginia
legislature which makes it penal to dis
turb the titles of persons in possession
OF lands, by buying and sell ng pretended
rights 10 them, from persons not in pos
session. That the possession had never
been ont of the pltf. was notorious not on
ly by the occupation of his tenant Sneed,
but by constant payment of taxes, and re
peated legal processionlngs by neIghbors,
named by the court as usual: and their
deeds on record were proofs of their hav
ing bought and sold. They persevered.
The pltf. then brought cross suit in the
chanccry court OF Richmond, to establish
I the deed from William Spiers the father,
! TO his son John, and to vacale the fraudu-
! lent Conveyances to Sneed and Johnson {:
, and on the proceedings in this suit all the
preceding facts were fully and regularly
established. But all these are carefully
kept out Of view by this faithful reporter
he finds it answers his purpose better to
say nothing about the pltrs right TO the,
land by prior purchase-he is silent as to
the fraudulent proceedings OF Sneed and
! Johnsou--he would rather it should b.
believed that the plrt's opposition pro-
ceeded from their uuwlIlngness 10 part
with what his father had soid--to repre-
sent him a. mere common IDformer,
he says not word, but OF the penal acti-
ons which, as had been notified to John
| son, were brought at the same time in the
district court of Charlottesville, against
him and Sneed, for the offence of buying
and selling lands, the prior right and pos
session of which were in the pllf.-It
had certainly been believed that the law
being explicit, and the evidence of its
breach recorded in the same court under
their own hands, no Jury would undertake
to find verdict directly in the face Of
both law and fact: but the proceedings in
| the court OF chancery having in view diff
! ierent object, from that of the action at
law in Charlottesville, the whole case
could not, by the rules of the court be gil
ven in evidence before the juries. They
could not, therefore, couple the equity of
the suit in Richmond with the strictuess
of that in Charlottesville. They viewed
the latter prosecution, not as part of the
general means which the law had given
the pltf. for maintaining his right, but as
an insulated proceeding to recover Pc
nalty. The first and second juries ahho
they saw that both the law and fact were
palpable, and were so advised by the Jud-
ges, could not, in their repugnance to pc
nal actions, agree on verdict. The third
found for the def. although equally coun-
Selled by the Judge, (whom our reporter
states to be a lederalist, and therefore
without preiudices in favor Of the pltf.) that
their verdict was in the face Of both law
and fact. No reflection is mean; to be cast
on them for so doing. They doubtless,
IN opposition to the admonitions of the
Judge, and to the terms Of ,heir oath, which
were that they should decide " according
to law and evidence" were persuaded
to believe that they might find "against
law and evidence" if they disapproved Of
the law and il remains to be seen whe-
Their in the trial between the same PITT.
and Sneed, not yet come on, another jugy
can be found who shall he equally made
TO believe, they have power to dispense
with law and evidence. Certainly this is
the first time we have seen federal par
tisan take the side of Jury against
the judge, and federal Judge too and
we congratulate the jury on their coinci-
deDce ef sentiment with their new friends
vet knowing them well, :hink they
will, themselves, be led to doubt their for.
mer views of this subject, and to exclam
with the Psalmlst, Lord what have
done that the wicked should praise me-"
This candid reporter seems to- have view
ed the case Of Naboth, as ne has done that
of Johnson, all on one side. Naboth was
unwilling "to give up the inheritance of
his fathers" while fwo men sons 2f BE-
Hat" rose up against him to wreat it from
him by fraud and falsehood the public
will apply this authority more impartially
than this false TishJite has done. mimi.
tation of our reporter, l shall add that a.
NY one who doubts the correctness Of the
facls herein stated, may find them esta-