Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-03
RICHMOND, JAN, 8
VIRGINIA LEGIsLATuRE

received from the Senate that they had passed. the
bills, altering the time of holding quarterly court
for the county of Halifax; establishing the town of
Bolivar the lands Of Geo. Rowles and others
in the county of jefferson. near Harper's Ferry;
and tina, they had also passed, with amendments.
the bll concerning the securities OF Matthew Fl.
Rice; establishing ferry from the lands OF Jonas
Long in the county of Mason across the Ohio
river; and changing the times of holding the supe-
ror and inferior courts of Tazewell county. The
proposed amendments were concurred in by the
House.
Mr.. .Neuille obtained leaveto bring in bill to
change the time OF holding the superior court Of law
for Hardy.
Mr.. .dmiss asked leave TO bring in bill to
reduce the fees OF Attorneys prosecuting the pleas
OF the commonwealth in the circuit and county
courts thereof, and increase the fines for unlaw--
iul gaming in certain cases. 10 making this motion
Mr. "A. enumerated all the fees allowed TO attor-
MES Tor prosecutions in the county and inferior
courts both in civil and criminal cases. and referred
to the annual allowance made in addition thereto;
and commended that this compensation TOO high.
II jury gave verdict in the county court against
| man Tor only one cent, the attorney entitled
To $40 to De taxed in the bill of costs.
Jdr. Opshur opposed the motion. He thought
that all the fees allowed in civil mode
rae enough. In criminal the fees were laid
by he offenders against the laws Of the land, pro-
uided they were collected on execution. In these
had Teen correctly graduated according TO the diff
Guilty OF convincing offenders, and was part of the
penalty Tor the offence Ihequestion for the House
TO decide was whether it was better 10 direct the
| whole amount 10 go into the treasury, or that q
smaller part should be paid with the greater certan-
~ OF i,s ayment. reduction Of the fees in Grim
| NAL Cases woud from the nature OF things lessen
the zeal OF attorneys in procuring the conviction Of
offenders; and In this point of view was better
policy 10 increase than diminish their fees
Mr.. PoUeH also opposed the motion. He said
1t the gentleman's object was TO relieve the poor
and oppressed, it might be done by repeating the
tax law process, which was taken from the
pockets OF the poor and paid into the treasury. IF
motion were E-ade to this effect he would sustain
1t. But he did not think that the vioaiors of the
law were entitled to any mercy at the hands OF the
House.
The house refused the leave.
Mr. GuStin offered a resolution to instruct the
committee 10 enquire into the expedency of altering
or amending the whole or any part of the military
laws.
.Nr. Hungerford remarked that the very nature
OF the duties Of the Militia Committee enioned ths
very enquiry them. After few words from
MIR. McWhor,er and MIR. Hungerford, the resolution
was rejected
Mr.. Booker called up the report on the contest
ed election from Greensville.
| Mr.. Riues said that notwithstanding this report
had been twice referred TO the committee he should
move It's reference again with instructions 20 pre-
pare report in conformity with the principles and
us ges heretofore observed by the House in similar
cases.
| This motion discussed at some length by
Messrs. Rves, Gholson and Evereite. The argu-
ment turned on the grounds assumed in for
mer debate the same subject
| Mr.. May offered an amendment to the PROPOSE
| tion OF Mr.. Rives, which was accepted by him, and
is In the following ords:
| ReSo1ued That the report Of the Committee OF
F. I'D Elections be recomm.ted to the same COM
| mtee, with instructions TO lake the land book %
prtna tdc,e evidence, paramount 10 the poll book.
oil the freehold qualifications OF the voters who are
objected 10 as not being treeholders.
| This resolution was supported by Messrs. May
and Taylor, and opposed oy Mr.. Gholson and as
adopted by the House without division.
On Mr. Ghols0n's motion the Committee OF F.
and Elections were discharged from he further
consideration of the petition of MIR. Spencer; and
he had leave TO withdra y his petition and doeu-
ments. Mr.. Gholson remarked in making this
motion, that Mr.. 5. had not taken evidence In pr--
susnce of the rule by which the House had deter
mined the should be decided
mr.. Pdtfeson OF "a: called up an engrossed bill
to amend the several LAOS concerning the Staunion
and James River Turnpike Company
/ Mr.. Gordon moved 10 reconsider the vote di-
rectlng the bill to be engfossed; and explained his
object In making this motion Mr.. Patteson had
no objection to the motion, but though, he would
be able TO show THAT the objections alledged did not
exist. Mr.. Gordon's motion prevailed.
Mr.. Gordon then moved to atrike out a clause
In the bull which be considered at with the pro-
vision OF The general turnpike act in relation to
the condemnation and payment for lands Injured by
the turnpike. The bill he said as it now stood per
mitted the President and Directors OF the Companv
to proceed with the road the lands of an ind-
yidual, Notwithstanding he might consider himself
injured and had appealed to the proper tribunals of
the country for redress. He could not see wbv
this or any other company should be granted this
privilege in violation Of the general law ON the
subject. The people of his county could have no
objection TO the road; but they had right to expect
| that II was TO be constructed in the usual manner
and that their property was not to be taken from
them, except in the mode pointed out in the gene
raj law.
| Mr.. PGtteson replied that the bill although at
variance in this respect, with the general law was
not without precedent. The same privilege had
been granted to The Lynchburg and Salem Turns
tpike Company, and TO the Commissioners in their
improvements on the James River, &c Mr. y.
houSht that this power was less Objectionable than
hat an individual should have the right to arrest
me progress oil any great work of Improvement,
merely because he was dissatisfied with the damages
awarded TO him. II was known that some indiyidu-
ais were disposed 10 arrest the progress of the
work, and therefore the Company desired this au-
thority.
Mr.. Gordon replied. He said that the prece-
dents which bad been reced were but proofs Of
me necessity on the part of the members Of that
House to be guarded against their increase in future.
lie commented on the improperly Of permitting
corporations TO trsppie the rights of individuals
IN The way proposed by the bill. While the people
oil AIDemarle fbe ,,f he ..illino