Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-02-05

! IA the land, IN which Il bena!ty Was inHicte,
On an indicsduat. He could not see the diff
ference between the obligor i'm penal bond
aud = tenant. 10 the one case, the penalty wa.
uniformly released, and in the other il was ge.
tefaiiy executed. HE though: Il man of Jus,
feelings would not exact ii but that avariciuus
and bad men might be expected To- do so.-
The law, he commended, put the tenant ipo
much under the control Of the landlord, The
power oi the hitter was calculated to make
the ioriner subserviciit 10 his views and nie-
rests II tended 10 destroy that independence
oi sentiment and of action among the citizens,
which we al! admire, and eulogize. There
was another objection to the law, tenants were
not represented on that floor-nune but the
tended interests were.-The power was all on
the one side, and it seemed Ia have been ex-
ercised with too little regard To the rights oi
TIE other and he thought 1t unjust to CONT
nue. law IN the statute book So unequal in
It's operation. Although tenants were not re-
presented, II WAS presumed that their rights
would be represented. de did not mean IL
say Una, any disposition existed i'm the House
to Cypress that class of the community, bat
he would say, that the provision of the exist
ing law was a remnant oil the old reudal aristo-
crazy, SC. &c.
Mr.. LoueN was opposed 10 the bill on pr;n-
cipie; but as lac had not had time Ia consider
It, moved to lay it on the table. The provi-
sion IN the law in question: h,. said, had exist
cd nom the foundation of the government.
1t should he recoecicd that the power of
landlords had been of late much limited
Mr.. IdfteSoa of A. hoped the gentleman
would give the House his ideas mt once, aud
LEI the subject be opposed of. He was, him
sell, opposed TO the bill.-The people of Fir-
Sinia I'M derstood the subject, and no incon-
venience was felt. After few remarks upon
the impolicy of the bib, Mr.. L. said he hoped
the House would do things which were ne
cessary to be done, and let alone those which
were not necessary, that they might bring the
session tn close.
The House refused TO lay the bill on the
table.
Mr.. .aenniS said many or the peopl. felt
the grievances OF the present law, SC. There
was no provision ia IL even more severe than
the common law.-If the property of third
person IS dstrained for rent, aud he repleyips
1t and should be cast in the suit, Judgment
IS rendered against him. not for the value of
the property, nor even for the double of that
value, bat for double the amount Of the rent in
arrear at the time. Men were liable some
times to mistake their rights and if they did
80, he thought they ought not TO he subjected
to such heavy penalties. If the object of the
law he to enforce the payment OF rent was
not the summary remedy and the preference
of trial given 10 landlords, sufficient 10 an
swer that purpose lie Thoughts the law IN
Just because it was not reciprocal. The te-
nant was subject to double damages for fail
ure at iaw-the landlord was only liable for
the payment OF costs.
Mr.. LoueH, was understood to contradict the
law, as expounded by the member from Bed
ford, Mr.. NJ He said that prior 10 the late
law, all property found on the premises, was
liable for rent. This, he acknowledged, was
vestige of the old irudal system; hut it
had been altered, and the real owner of pro.
perty which had been taken for rent, might
now claim and recover it. The explanation
which he gave of the law on the subject of
recovery of double the amount of the rent,
was essentially different from that of Mr. NJ
lie thought the law reciprocal in giving to the
tenant, or other person whose property had
been improperly taken far rent, the remedy
by replevin, and the further remedy OF an ;,c-
ton OF trespass at common law, Sc
Mr. .Mennis, read the law and pointed out
IFS accordance with the explanation which he
had given. He said that so far from heing
soitened by the late revsal, one ef the provi-
slons ofwilich he complained was then intro
dnced. Power was given to the landlord
whenever he suspected his tenant about to
remove, not from the comfy or state, bat
from the demsed premises, to go before a
magistrate and get an attachment not for the
amount of rent due at the lime but for the
term of the lease. And the tenant was nblie-
ed to give bond and security, or his property
would be sold upon credit, payable at the end
OF the term. Mr.. NJ. said il the bill would
violate single right ofthe landlord, he would
give up the question ; hut he considered all
the rights of the landlord secured in the most
ample manner.
Mr.. Page did not mean TO discuss the uues-
ton. He perceiv ed there was difference Of
opinion among gentlemen as to the law: and
presuming the House not prepared to act.
moved that the bill be postponed until Mon
day next Mr.. .Ucnnis conctrrcd in the
motion, and the bill was accordingly postpoa-
ed.
The bill TO amend the act concerning exc
cntIons and for the relief of insolvent debtors,
was taken up and the Isl amendment pronos
ed by the committee agreed TO. The cd A.
mendment proposed to repeal the law which
requires slaves, mules, workoxes and horses
taken under execution, 10 be sold at the
Courthouse ofthe counties.
Mr.. Garland opposed the amendment as
gong to repeal one of the most valuable pro-
visions IN our laws a provision which prevent
ed the rnInous sacrifice ofproperty which had
taken place at sheriff sales, previous to its
adoption.
Mr.. Hooe OFF. VIM. advocated the amend
ment. He said the sheriff was compelled to
advertise fhe property at the next court after
it was seized by which he was sometimes COM
PEELED to keep il one month before il could
be sold. During this time, the expense of
keeping il was very heavy, falling entirely up
on the debtor, and in some instances, exceed
ing the amount for which the property sold.
He thought it desirable TO change "A law. pro-