The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1826-06-26

c.s,r,l Court o. Thursday the 1874
,h. General Court met ncro ding 10
--present. Judges Rrarkauh nngh,- -
i -, saunders, Daniel. r f.. Parker,
,.rd;n and Batbour Or FRIDAY, Judgt
o.,,nle appeared and took hts seat. The
- ha,r, IS 1t. anly acted "a motions
,.,sde hy the Auditor.
a., ,fie l7.h the Grand Jury made IN.
e.n,,,ine nrrsentnrnt: THAT HIM. Uui-
- Henipg. cIerk Of ihr superior Can't Of
s..'oc.ry. Directed hy law, In hr hola"n in
,,a CIV of Krhn"ad.. within twelve
.,ooths last past. I" VII: on The 18th af
iii 1895 IT the connfy of llrurieo, and
.;,l,in the jurisdiction ri the SAID Genet al
ut nalaWfalla aud extortl,rly, kb0w-
,..,,lv and fraudnlrntly. did charge. demand,
.sct and take Ia, of, and from a certain
Tho,nas h. Brs ant. as and for fees Of bu-i
- nv him, the said w. w. Heoing Al
,..4,ad ia have hren done IN his capacity
arclerk. as aforesaid, the sum at twenty
,ao dollars and twenty four cents, the sand
nm, hiring more than WAS by law allowed,
- th. said business, in truth, and in fact.
a,t having been done, for which the said
Ar Hrnina WAS therrupon indicted hv
the Attorney Gep'ral, and the indictment
HING sent To the Grand Jury, they found
1.true bill" Thr Foreman of the Grand
I,ry stated in court, that by the evidence
bsfore them, il appeared that too fee hills
c,r The ga ne am nnnt. had been paid by thu
individual but that the payment OF
s ~, was not within the last twelve moath~
anil tina. il appeared, that the services had
mol been rendered IN either case. The
rial under this indictment viii not came on
during the present term of the court.
Il. Eng Of Jane 20.
To THE EDITORS OF the ENQUIRER.
Gentlemen High as the spirit Of per
soratinn has ragged against me-, for snme-
time past, | was not prepared to expect
that the presentnirnt Of i gand jury, who
neressaril, hra.. bat one SHE Of question
would have been published, dHting ihe seS-
SION ofthe Court by which the public o.
pln.on might hr pr'ladgrd. So lar from
m, Knowingly mad the charge complain
ed #. lid not make it al all. II was
made ~ one Of ftp Jerks n my ufrr,
whom hive always found 10 he one Of
the most correct young 'ntn in principle
and practice, ever knew aud who mad
nainterest directly or indirectly, IN ma
king e charge. II originated entirely in
mistake (Which might occur in any Office, j
b. consolidating two suits originally carrl-
ed on spperatriy ; aud which practice has
herr rccen.l\ adopted. The style et the
two SUIT having been merged in one, and
NV Zee book having been opened, it WAS
mol pricel1r ed or Teeoilr ted thai the
samf f. 5 had b en- charged in nne OF the
suits prosecuted separately, which was
afterwards charged in IN" sun rs censoli-
dated. Wen both s,dtS Of the question
shall have been heard it viii be time e
n usn 10 maxi up an opinion
WIN. ". HENING.
Richmond, J,tne Goth 1926.
4, made the charges in the fee baoks,
which are the subject of poqary hciore the
Generd Court al tins tiue, and rs VI
Hcnnlng requests me n state my belief o.
Tho f4cls in relation IL those charges, |
drem IT my dur, to do So.
There were two suits in relation to the
same matter depending they we're con
dlcied separately unul the nuary term
La, Nhcu III, wcrr consolidated. I he
fees f coloe" Werr charged separately, IN
til the order of consolidation, after which
they w,re charged together.
A the january term 1927. there WAS an
inlrrIorqiory decree pronounced. And -
was the practice ,thc taxing of the costs
bong then required charged The making
~ If the record IN the fee book, which