The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-09


/" kind. tending to impose upon the COURT
G) or. in fine, to I" do any thing which
4" demonstrates gross want of that regard
" and respect which when once the courts
{" of justice are deprived of, their authority,
" ESQ necessary to the good order of the stated
20 is entirely lost among the people" Cg J
Judge johnson in delivering his opinion
in the Case of Fletcher U. Peck, expressed
himself in the following terms - have
:. been perry unwilling 70 proceed to the de
90 cision of this cause at all 1t appears to
80 me to bear sfrong evidence, upon the. face
!" of IL. OF being mere Jcigncd case. II 10
~s our duty to decide on the rights. bnt not
sac on the sflecuicfions of parties. My conf
dsnce, however, in the respectable gentle
men who have been engaged for the par
ties. has induced me to abandon my scru-
pies, in the belief that they would never
&c Consent to impose 7tere .5eig,icd case
"upon this court. IN )--Consderng the
aelicacy which that gentleman might have
deemed it proper for HIM TO observe on this
occasion. there can be no stronger a0erment
that, in his judgemeht, the case in question
was mere feigncd case, calculated to try,
not the rights, but further the views and
Speculations of the parties to the project
II was too much TO require that Judge to
sustain alone the whole odlum, hossi6ty re-.
eulting from making this objection, Q mean
with these SPECTATORS, and their adherents,
for 1t would nave canuoniz ed him with the
fn6hcJ in this he ought, undoubtedly,
TO have been supported bv the court itself.
According TO my humble apprehension, if
that high tribunal had received from the
most humble Individual. the least CLEAN of
lnformaticn, that fraud of this kind had
been practised upon it, 1t ought TO have pau
Sed. and instantly have caused rhe proper
enquiry to be instituted and forfiori,
when one OF the most respectable members
OF the bench had lodged the information
{t may so express myself and when the
Counsels concerned in the cause and TO whom
the judge had made delicate appeal upon
the subject. did not deign to say TO the court,
that his suspicious and belief were entirely
unfounded !-Whether these proceedings
donot, on the face Of Them" bear strong
evidence OF being mere fetgned case"
will now briefly enquire.
The action was all action of covenant
brought by Fletcher against Jno. Peek, ON sc
verai Covenants contained in deed, whereby
tue LATTER conveyed to the former. certain
iands. part or a. large purchase made by
James Gum and others, from the Lesis!s
tu'e OF the State of Georgia, in the year
1795. o. As most men who purchase land.
and especially those who make large and
advantageous speculationS therein prefer
getting sure and indeteasible title to the.
lands themselves rather than damages for
tne loss thereof. we may reasonably conclude
that 1T was FLETcHER's wish, if he really
existed, Gas 1t was undoubtedly his interes, \
To have the validity of the purchase. under
the act OF Jan. 1f95, established: So also
tins was undoubtedly the wish and interest
OF PEcK; for l presume he is the same
JOHN PEcK, who appears in the offer of a
compromise TO the COM missoners of the IT.
States before mentioned, to be a PRINCIPAL
share holder in The New England Mississip
pi Land Company, which indeed is fully adj
united by his late MANIFESTO to the pco-
pie OF the United States, predicated upon
Tue decision IN Question /; and having sold "a
FLETCHER, only PART" of his land.
he undoubtedly wished his title to the resi-.
due, to be established. Both the parties.
therefore, wishing the same thing. 1.-The es
adjustment of The validity of the act of Ian.
1795,) II IS entirely immaterial, Whether
FLETCHER was merely an IDEAL per
son, toisted in upon the court, to ACCOMPLISH
that end, or REAL plaintiff, Whether re
al o. ideal, there was, SUBSTANrIAILY
but ONE party before the Court lat least as
to ne point OF the validity Of the act of Jan
1852 and lie Wished the establishment n;
rs validity, aud was interested in making
such statement only, in the pleadings. as
would effectuate that wish. There was no
p rson before the court interested to contest
tue validity ofthe act Of 1885, to take care
OF the interests OF the state N Georeia. or
OF the United States claiming under il. &c in
sert the REAL FACTS of the case in the
pleadings, and to rely up, n the necessary
points by counsel ---True to this plan ri
proceeding, il will be found that the breach
assigned upon the third covenant in the deed
Nwhich is the most materially has exceed
lngiy soHTENRD and MiTfGKTED the ac-
tnal facts and circumstances of the trapsac
ton. That covenant is, that all the title
winch the state of Georgia ever had to the
land In question, had been legally conveyed
to JOHN PECK
The breach of this covenant, assigned by
this pptH, or pretended pl'tff, is not, las the
Jacf Is.) that ''aH" the members of the Iepisls
tufe who voted in favor of the act, except one.
were actually, at The time ofvoting ,6ri6ed e
corrupted Tor their votes, by being then ac
tuaiiy shareholders in the purchase it orlv
states in the miider terms that the orig;
snal grantees from the state of Georgia.
promised end assured DIVERS members
OF the legislature" that il the act passed.
they should hare" share of the lands
purchased, by reason OF which frog,isea''
the SAID members we're " undtky fn4uen
eed," TO pass the said act. Nothing can be
more clear, than that this statement is ex
ceedingly Soffened down, from the truth of
che case, as developed in the documenis Al
ready referred to OK in almost all the ma
teriai circumstances and that it is snch a
Na