The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-06-26
(FOR THE ENQUIRER.)

~ me Seneral Court. Present Jadges Nelson,
White, Stuart, Coulter, and Evans.
The important case of the commonwealth a.
Virginia, cainst John Clarke, came on to be tried
before jury composed Of the following most
respectable characters Robert Grecnhoyv, Sa
muet Myers, George Fisher, Williams Carter,
| Thomas Taylor, Gabriel Ra!ston, John MILLER,
| Robert Davidson, Robert Nc KIM, Armistead
Long, William Odcn and John Nicholas. :
The Counsel were, For the commonwealth
The Attorney General and Benja Botts Es-
quire.
For the observation-disclosures. Wickham and
| Writ. -
! The case was This John Clarke was the n.
riginai protector of the plan of the manufactory
OF arms at thus city. At the time Of his beinf.
called 20 this business, he WAS engaged with
| great reputation aad On very extensive scale
IN the business of a mill right, having in his en-.
ployment body of first rate workmen, many of
whom had been instructed by himself Attract.
ed by his genius, the executive selected hin, for
TINS important trust and in the year 1898 sent
him on to the north to inform himself bv examin
| ms the various institutions of the kind which
were IN operation there. On his return, he enter.
ed INTO contract with the execu tive to build The
machinery of the manuisctosy of arms, accord.
ing to bill of particulars annexed to the con.
tract tor . 1O,C55. 1t was in full proof that, at
the time OF the contract, the model in the con.
temptation OF the partie, was that of the Spring.
ileid Mandatory in the state of Massachusetts,.
sketch OF which, taken by the defendant on the
spot ana authenticated by proof, was before the
jury Euf as the work progressed, various new
improvements were suggested by the genius of
the defendant and impaired to the executive, and
they, consulting the solid interests and dignity
OF the state, adopted those improvements and
permitted the defendant to depart from the terms
OF his contract and substitute them for the
springfield machinery. The novelty of the
work, the complication Of the machinery and the
extent OF the scale, kept the defendants work.
men employed upon it from November 1889 un.
I'll February 1907. During the progress of the
WORK, the friction and conclusion of the heavy
machinery put into operation from time TO fine
| as 1t was finished, had rendered great quantity
OF repairs necessary which were done by the de.
fendant's workmen. They had done vari-
| ely OF other work, not comprizetl in the bill of
particulars, such as aqucducts, forebays &c. &c.
&c all 'ndispensibly necessary for the manufac-
, tory, and which they from their superior skill
were best capable OF doing. These various al
terations, improvements, repairs and other work
out ofthe contemplation of the contract raised
tue defendants charge against the common wealth
to 5 $4,000 Tor the whole: He had drawn, from
tirne TO time, tor sums of money on account of
this work, as his WAITS pressed : and he had
oFaWn . l9,OO0 IN the name of his foreman To-
sepb Young the executive council had regular
~ sanctioned his drafts and directed the Auditor
10 issue warrants for their amount With regard
20 bis using the name of Joseph Young his
foreman, III drawing for the extra work, II was
proven by Doctor William Fousnee, then mem
per OF TIE executive council, that the defendant
had IN the beginning conferred and consulted
with INN as to bis certifying the extra work in
the name OF Young: Doctor. Foushee told him
that the council having appointed no one over
nm TO superintend ard certify his work, and ha-
wing sanctioned his certificates ofhis woii K done
under the contract, he saw no greater impropri-
ETY. IN his certifying the extra work also that if
the work was done and worth the money,i was
imIna,eriai TO the commonwealth whom lie
Should make his receiver and as TO his
sing the name of Joseph Young in the certificate
for the latter work (the ezra work. it WAS rot
only not improper, but might be the most con-
venent as 1t would serve to distinguish the ezra
from the contract work. Colonel James Monroe.
then The Governor of the commemorative also
proved that he knew tlat the defendant was tho
only contractor for the machinery: that he kue v,
that Young was his foreman that although the
certlieate WAS giver by the defendant that
l Dung was entitled TO the money, he well knew
that The money was for the defendant ard he com
sdere2 the name of Young TO be matter of firm
merely, and not OF substance. The evidence Of
Alexander McRae enquire, another member of
the then executive council, was to the same ef.
lecs. IT was proven by several witnesses that
the woik bad all been one that IL was +yorth
I the money which had been charged for !; and
that the defendants rnilriEhts, If they had been
engaged curing the same len 9Th of time in bull.
aing mills tor bun, on private contracts and at
lne prices which ie had been in the habit of fecei-
| wing, would have earned for him, much larger
sum. IL was further proven that the Virginia
.iSn"tAcioiy oil arms WAS not only the first in the
CH"ed StdfeS but that it surpassed in contriy.
-nce, IN exquisite workmanship and value. any
pubic work OF the Kind either i'm England or
tfancei aud that in either of those Countries
| such "a work could not be built for a much larger
| sum than this had cost.
The Legislature Of 1859. on an imperfect
view OF this subject, displaced the defendant,
with marks OF great indignation, from his office
ut superIntc"'iant Of the Insnufactory, and drec.
ted the institution Of this action for the purpose of
| recovering back large sum of money, which
they supposed him 60 have received, thro' fraud
and imposition practlsed on the executive The
cause came on 10 be heard on THURSDAY. 14t,
| June, and was closed on last Saturday evening.
between and 6o'clock. a vast mass Of ey :
| dence, written and psro, was laid before the ia.
| ry, and they had every light upon the subject
which tie oature Of the case afforded.
| The witnesses 10 behalf of the Common wealth
were John Slrode OF CuIpepeF, z. Rieh'd Young
OF Richmond on whose evidence, principally, the
| Legislature had acted William Jcc,naa of Abe
| marie, David Holloway, VIM. RawIegh, Tho.
mas Hume, Robert Ainswor,b. Macon Green,
| Yearmans smith, Wilson y yah, Geo. DaDne,,
| Hermsn u Sued, Isaac Otey Ard Thomas N
| W0oding WI, rh two lust, were among the moss
| active members Of the assembly, OF 1903, & hao
voted for tic institution Of tD;s SUIT aud were now
| the two most effective o. tne commonwealth.
| Witnesses. Wm. W Hehing, General lame,
4 NJ Irtsrt -