Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-01-31
RICHMOND. JAM, Al
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF DELEGayES.

1.MSuey, "a" Ga Ho;npuncation was
4 passed the bill "To authorize Lottery for
the benefit of the Monongalia Academy''-
And also that they had passed with amendments
the bills 10 authorize the raising by way of Lot
terry sum of money for improving the Fauo,ior
and Alexandria Turnpike '-.Concerninp the
powers Of the trustees Of the tow n of Port ROYAL
in the county of Caroline'-and IAN act to ,ntbor
i ize the erection OF dam across Queens Creek
aud that they had disagreed to the Resolution for
an examination OF Patterson's creek in Hampshire
county.
On Mr.. Wallace's motion, the first bill with its
4 amendments was laid upon the table
The amendments proposed by the Senate TO the
two last oills were concurred intpy the House.
Mr.. Rivcs of Prince George moved to amend IN.
i 9TH rule Of the House, which ia in these words
4 "A question on being once determined must stand
B as the Judgment OF the House, and cannot again
Eibe drawn into debate, during the same session.
nir. X. moved to add to this rule, these words
a Nor shall this rule he suspended unless three
IA members voting in the majority concur therein.
4 before an argument be made:' Gas the custom of
the House now is, a question may be reconsidered
ION the motion OF one of the Majority
MIR. Harvie observed, that the House was then
thin, and that the rules ought not to be changed
but in full House. He therefore. moved 10 Law
the proposition on the table-which motion pre.
vailed, ayes 62, noes 60.
MIR. Anderson OF Botetourt, moved the House
TO reconsider the bill concerning Thomas w.
a White
This motion was supported by Messrs Craig,
Smith OF Greenbrier, and Nelson-and prevailed
without division.
The bill was then taken up, and Mr. Duncan
moved to re-commit the bl-which was carried
without division. The bill was then referred to
Select Committee, on the motion of Mr. Smith
Z of Kanawha.
On motion Of Mr.. Mason of Frederick the re-
port OF the Committee OF Finance as to Preston 8
Is 'curiies was taken up.-The resolution of the
Committee declared that the petition of the Sure.
ties OF the late Treasurer, John Preston in
I his official bond Of the 18th January 1919, pray
Ing, that an act may pass, generating them from
(. all further claim in virtue of Judgment recover
ed against them in the General Court, on the IIth
Cay OF Dec. 1921, in theerame of Jerman Baker,
4 Treasurer Of the Commonwealth, in behalf of the
4 Commonwealth, is reasonable.
MIR. Mason stated. that it had been laid the other
cay on the table at his notion for the purpose of
acluainting himself better with the facts of the
fcase-The more he reflected, the more he was sa
ttshed OF the justice of the claim of the Securi
"A ties Tor release from their liability He said that
any private individual standing as the Common
wealth now does, would think himself bound in
conscience to release his Debtor. Mr. NJ then
went into recapituIation of the case He stated
mat 1t was in evidence before the General Court.
that the embezzlement of the Treasurer John
(, Preston, had taken place before 1919 the wear
when these gentlumen became securitiesEbut
Il that the Commonwealth had then contended, that
itwas not admissible for the Treasurer to go be-
YOU'D MS Docks; that he was estopped by them from
shewng that the embezzlement had previously
'aKen place; and that the same doctrine was ex-
tended to the securities-that although thew were
prepared to prove by evidence that the books were
laise yet that the court bound by the false en-
tries of the books The Special Court to whom
the appeal lay decided that the hooks did operate
an eStoPpeI-but no sooner was this decision pro-
muigated. than every lawyer in every quarter of
Inc state declared against it. 1t happened proyi-
centrally for the securities, that the same point
came up in the Court of Appeals, in the case
OF Mumford against the Overseers OF the Poor
OF Nottoway, in 1924. The court did then re-
verse the decisions; and one of its Judges carefully
reviewed the opinion of the Special Court He
ASKED, what the securities asked. Not TO re-
verse the decision of the Court of Appeals; but to
connrm the principles, last and carefully settled
by that Court. Mr. NJ. here read extracts from
the opinion OF Judge Green lin the case of Mum
ford, &c) TO shew that he did not consider the
decision in the case of Prestons Securities as at all
conclusive or correct. And how do these securi-
TIES now stand! They are held bound by the
commonwealth to pay money, which her courts
declare That In principle they are not bound to
pay. MIR. Nj. went on to show, that if the Com
monweaith had abstained from interfering with the
securities, the avails of the property which thew
would have sold, would have paid the amount NJ
,he debt due TO the Commonwealth and thus re-
iieved thcmselves-that the state had obtained an
Injunction to stop the sale Of Pres,on's property,
vhen IL would have commanded good and eff
while the property was tied up in Chancery for
fourteen months, the interest was running ON a.
ganst the securities. Mr.. Nj. read certificate
from j. II. Lynch, that he was authorised to give
some thousands for the property in Gooch-
iand before the dissolution of the injunction, than
what 1t was actually sold for afterwards If TN.
uer such circumstances an individual would con-
sent to exact the penalty of the bond he would he
. literally called Shylock.
Mr. Witcher called for the ayes and NOES He
asked upon what sound principle did the securi-
lies Of Preston apply TO this House for release,
ney were ms securities; and for what?-Were
ihey not securities for his integrity Were they
not bound for the accuracy Of m. entriea -
MS books! Had he not acknowledged that On
much money was in the Treasury, when thew
signed his bond! Were they not bound bv this
ieceipt OF their prncipal and responsible TO make
u goodf Mr.. w. contended, that although The
treasurer was the same individual from wear IN
I ye' 'nSt ne ought to be considered as being
. oiHerent oihcer In every successive year--and
snat Whatever sum he acknowledged 10 no in his
hdnos al the commencement Of every wear. the
sS.curues ought to be held bound to make IL pood
MT w observed, that whatever the gentlemen
rom Frederick might say of the opinion entertained
VI me decision OF the court, yet he had never AS
,en'so 70 such an opinion. He had always though,
spc oecision was a correct one-and such also
nda oeen the opinion of the Legislature: for
on TWO prior occasions, they had after full discus
slon' rejected similar application from the securi
uee'-1ad their claims for release acquired addi
uonai force from timel--or was IL because the snb
!sct was getting little more musty, that the
c'sn was again pressed and hope was enter.
FAMED OF its SUGGEST He also examined the facts
wheh had been stated by Mr.. Mason.-He con.
Tended that IL the securities had incurred interest
.ne Commonwealth was not TO blame n was
notcertain that the Trustees would have sold the
EVperty az the time the injunction obtained