Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-21
FoR THE ENQUIRER.

tOR Iii ENQUfRER.
Decisions of the Gencrai C0nlt-l92o.
CASE II.
Six parte Robert w Collins ION a question
adJoarued IRON the Superior Court OF Lewis
county
The applicant is Clerk of The circuit conrt
Sf Lewis county. He Is also licensed 10 prac-
sIse as attorney aud counsel al law. He moved
she sdid circuit court, TO allow him 10 qHalIfy as
attorney " counsel III said court. a.l"gIu: that
1he ACT Oi;Asstmbly q Rev: Go p. 210 I3)pIoA
lhblIed the clerks OF county coats only from
practising tie la~ III tile courts OF which they
were clerks. Whether he shoud be permitted
20 quality according TO iis m1siJn was the
question adjourned.
OPINION or TIE COURT.
The court u unanimously OF opinion that
tde dulles at clerk Oi superior cont ofldw, ~
Oi counsel and attorney in the same court are
incompatible with each other, and that they
Interfere go much, one with the other, that
there is dagger lest they mi sht not both be
executed with Inparti ,!iiy and honesty. aud
therefore this CONT doth deede. that, accord
Ing 10 the common law o. the land. tie cleik
OF superior couIt at law ought not TO he
permitted 10 take the oathS preacTibed by law
Tor counsel and attorneys, nor to pT3ciiCe as
suCH, ia the court of which he 10 CLERK"
CASE III.
The Commonwealth ..;,
Na,bamlsi Hooper, Rcl-t journed from the
ard ard. GIlS "a , Joseph Gil scoi, County. ' q
The defendants were indicted for on affray.
Two OF them we're acquitted, aud two found
Euiity. lie ouly question adjourned was,
whether tho attorneys tee of ten dollars Civ.
en- by The act q Rev Co:p 2il, 500 should
ne taxed IN The bill of costs asaiuSt each de.
tendami convicted. The court decided that ia
tls case, the attorneys tee of Ten dollars,
ought not 10 tie taxed in the bill OF costs q,
gq,nSt each deiend5ut. IL not appearing that
the Two defendants against whom fhe iudg :
Inent was rendered had severed IA their de-
feDce.
CASE ".
Ihe commonwealth I Adjourned case from
Jacob Is Bro BrownweI Gfeenbrer.
The defendant was iudicted tor INSIDE
mednor tn the county court OF Creeubrier....
The attorney tor tie commonwealth, aud the
defendant agreed that the canse might be re.
moved aud placed on the docket OF the supe.
Slor court aud there tIied. The que stlon I'D.
Journed was, whether size Judge OF tue supe
nor court ought 10 permit IL to be dOCketed
in his court
Ihe court was Of opinion that the law plain
ly points out the manner ~ which pTOsscu
iious may be commenced u the superior court
bat that the mere consent OF parties IL no
one OF the methods prescribed, and thef siOr,
that the indictment ia this record mentiOne,
ought not to be placed upon the docket 0
- CASE v.
Sna;ost Z Adjourned case from
The Commonwealth 'Po'''S'''"'a'
The court pronounced the following opinion
The plaintiff iu this witt OF error was pre-
sented IN the county court fOc falling 10 Keel
road IN repair lie being Surveyor thereof
and Oh the trial lie was tUed BY the jury, an
Judgment rendered against him by tie court
DuTlHg the vacation OF The superior cour
application was made 10 the tndge OF tii
court for wit OF error, aud II vas awarded
At the ncXt session of the superi0f c8rtf IN