Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-08-11
Law CASE-co,rmuN1cArrD.

In the year 1874, Thomas c. Amory was COM
missioned Justice of the Peace for the county
of Gloucester, qualified thereto, and exercised the
functions thereof, until some time in the year 1917
when he was duly qualified deputy clerk of the
County Court for the said county, in which capa-
city he acted until January 1926. At February
court following, he permitted by the court TO
| resume his seat Ju'tice of ,he P.sce the
court beirg of oTin or hal he had vacated the
same by periJruS.g the duties OF deputy clerk
Aforesaid, aad the same court recommend him 10
the Executive OF the Commonwealth of Virginia as
| fit person TO be commissioned Sheriff of the said
county. But the Executive refused to commission
him upon the ground of his having vacated his
Office of Justice of the Peace, by the performance
OF the duties OF deputy clerk aforesaid, and certi-
fed their refusal 10 the said county court, where
upon the said court decided that the said Amory
had vacated MS Office OF Justice of the Peace
At the last Spring term of the Superior Court
OF Law, holden for the said county OF Gloucester,
an application made for Writ of Mandamus
to be directed TO the justices of the county court of
Gloucester, commanding them 10 admit he petit
toner 10 the exercise of the duties OF his Office as
a Justice OF the Peace OF the county aforesaid,
or 10 make rule upon the Justices of the said
county, to shew cause why he should not be ad-
mitted TO his said ofiice and the coart being of
opinion, that the questions of law arising upon the
said petition both novel and difficult adjourn
for their decision, TO wit:
1st Are the Offices Of deputy clerk of a county
court land Justice OF the Peace OF the same coun-
| ty incompatible!
I'd. Does the acceptance of the Office Of deputy
clerk OF a county court, yacate the Office of
Justice OF the Peace ofthe county, held at the
time of such acceptance?
Sd. Ought the court, in the case presented by
| the petition and documents accompanying the same
| to make a rule upon the justices, TO shew cause
why Writ OF Mandamus should not issue, COM
handing them to admit the said peiiiione, to the
! exercise of the duties of his Office as Justice OF
| the Peace; or ought the court at once to grant
persmptory Mandamus in the case?
4th. Any other questions which may arise upon
| the record.
| In the General Court, 22d June, 1926, the fol-
| lowing decision made
The Justices OF Gloucester county at the suit of
Thomas &. Amory: Upon an adjourned case
| from the Superior Court of Law for Gloucester
county.
l. The court are unanimously of opinion, and
do decide, that the Offices of deputy clerk of
county court and justice of the peace of the
same county incompatible.
Ii is unnecessary 70 decide the second question
because-the court is unanimously Of opinion, and
doth decide that whether the acceptance OF the Of
nee OF deputy clerk OF county court, vaca,es
the Office OF justice of the same county held at
the time OF such acceptance or not, that in the
case presented by the petition and documents ac-
companying the same, The Superior Court Of Law
Tor the county Of Gloucester, ought not to make
rule upon the justices, to shew why Writ
OF Mandanus should not issue, commanding them
to admit the said petitioner 10 execute the duties
oil The office OF Justice Ut the Peace of the said
county OF Gloucester, and that the Court ought not
to grant peremptory Mandamus- is Or
dered to be certified 10 the said Superior Court.