Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-18

y ana, thereupop, lime Was allowed to
the plaintiff, until the next day, 10 answer
thereto.
On that day. the plaintiff again appear
cd IN court, by counsel, and was sworn
to HE answers, which. in The mean time.
With the assistance Of one OF his coun-
sci. lie bad prepared they were also re-
ierred To by The letter D.
Whereu, op.i tle oiio5ney general called
upon Commissioned B,yce, IS 10 Was sworn
To answer such questions truly, as should
be asked OF him in relation 10 ,Ais na,s
lev.
10 this the counsel for the plaintiff OBJ
Iecied; and Insisted, that ifihe plaintiff
on oath had pniged himself of lie contempt
WIN which he stood accused, lie should
tie discharged; as il was moi competent
10 the attorney general to Introduce testi-
mony Opposed TO The plaintiff : oath.
The attorney general a,'milied that This
was he usual course al law; but, denied
Tia, II was go III This court
By NE Chonceiior-Iet The aifoya,ey gen
cra1 proceed with his examination of Cnni
pis>ipmer Bryce, p,orisioaady; and. II he
court shall iind, upon looking inio the
auihor'les, mat the attorney general is
mistaken as Ia the couIse oi this court,
~ such eases, The examination shall be
suppressed.
Commissioners Bryce WAS then examir-
ed and rress-exansrcd, upon inierrogaio-
res and they we're also referred TO by
The letter +.
The argnmeniwas then commenced by
thedtt0in.y generator tie commons eahh.
and by Dec,d Robertson and JoLn E,ck-
tom, E>quires, tor The defendant, in This
rule.
On The next day, the 29flI January, The
arguments we're closed, when the court
took time TO consider thereupon.
FEBRUARY !, 1919.
Blythe Chanceilor-inih the first place, The
court is 10 settle the rule, in relation 10
The examination ui Commissioner Bruce.
Upon this point, most unquesiionabiy,
tie attorney general stated the law oftbis
court correctly.
HE objection TO the examination of
the commissioner, seems 10 bave grown
oul OF The rule, al law, where. in the case
OF q contempt, II the party can clear him
seliupon oath, he is discharged but if
pcJured, may be prosecuted for The per-
jury. Tuck. 81. 2S6.
The same aHthor, in the next page.
gives the rule, in such cases, in this cerrt,
directly tlie reverse of Tie rule at law:
Tor, he says kere, after the party in con-
tempt has answered upon Undergraduates,
his answers may be coniradictcd and
disproved, by iiie aiiidaviis ofihe ad, erse
party; aud he also gives the reason Of
The rule: that, until The introduction of
sequesira'ions, the whole process of Tic
courts al equity, III The several stages of
cause, and 10 enforce their DEGREES, was
in The nature OF process for contempt;
since, until then, the court could only act
an perSondm, and no, an rem: so that the
reason OF the rule, and the rule itself, are
still the same: notwithstanding tLe act
OF The legislature, which gives TO party
every writ of execution 10 enforce Il de.
cree in this court. which he might sue
out upon judgment at law; Tor, while
1hs act extends Tie process ofllIe court,
1t does not IN any manner change lis
power In relation TO the more anci, ut
practice oft.
This distinction between the rule here
and at law, is supported by the cases re-
ferred TO by tie attorney general, in ihe
Practical Reg istey, 1876 so thai, in this
respect, the law of ilie court is now 10 be
considered as settled.
The only doubt which the court enter
tanned, after looking into this matter, as
10 he examination of Commissioner
Bryce, was whether there was any ueces-
silly iorii, as his examination did MOI add
any new matter, 10 his report in relation
to This subject; and, as al present ad.is-
ed, ain inclined to think there was no
occasion for il.
will state my impressions now, both
as 10 the grade Of the commissioner, and
the eject Of his report.
He was said 10 be mere ministerial
officer, occupying no higher GROUND, i'll
relation 10 This court, than the cte,h, the
marshal, his deputy, or any oiIier execu-
tive or ministerial officer. How far this
analogy may be correct, il is not neces-
sary, on the present occasion, 10 stop In
ascertain for be ii so, in some respects,
such as the issuing OF notices aud of sub
ppnas for witnesses, and re, urding his
own acts; vet, in relation TO that duty,
whlch he is bound 10 perform, in lea Of
The Judge of this court, fesGlling from
The necessity OF things; hazard little.
nay, hazard nothing, niienl say, that il
The same duty were performed by tie
judge, il would be judicial, il is so when
performed by the commissioner VIII, is
The Judge of Ibis court a judicial officer
because he oaiy performs judicial duties
Tor noue Other car be imposed upon him.
Like duties, lheu, make ihe commission
or, so far like officer. Yes, he is a.jndi-
cict officer, as TO those duties Which,, bot
for him, The judge must perform and in
all respects acts, or ought 10 act, ~ tie
adjustment ofaIl matters referred 10 linn,
as Ills court should, il they were moi re-
ierred: And now, asto his reports.
They are to he taken, r,ima facie, 10 lie
true. 3 Per Williams, Ia COsta u.s. UG
Costa, IA, and IN lie P,aGieGi Register,
10, lie same case is referred to, and re-
lied oil as authority aud Lo'd ParLer,
in alien rs. Pindie6ury, ina note TO Tie
case just quoted, in Peer WjiiiamS, is re-
ported 10 have resolved, that by means