Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-08-05

A Id IN
this court the quss,on'--"whs,her counsel esuid
legally argue against the opinion OF the court ia cas-.
IKE the present. or In any case; and wae
cher the opinion Of tho ought 10 be asked in anv
case where Il may DO sonroveIted bel re IN. in,v.'
This case has been eisbor,eiy argued on psSrt by
dissngoih'ed member OF The bar; ami this coi, at
qae''ions ''journed Bu' 'hs' opinion bel gsupsnded
The case was disposed OF, a, the presen: ts, 10
decision OF the questions sdj1urosd
The court sad.--it does not appear on the re I'd
that the adjournm, was wi ,ae consent o. III. de-
PENDANT Tue ei'cu, court law, q. Rev Gu eh So
see IL, p 23s) provides, that hs "etcui court, m
any criminal ease may With thu II the b.
accused, adjourn question OF la~ to the Geueral
court &e. Whou, such the case 10 ,,np,oper
W adjourned here. and his always heid ihs
the con cut not appear OF ihs record ard cennof b.
presumed The court unaui nou.Iy Of opiu,op and
so decided that it did appear, iiom The record
that the Questions Ia this btis criminal ,a,.. wers
al ,urned with the consent OF the def N ani Il l. cous
has no jur'iicion to decide them. iii. case wa,
,hersIor-. femanded TO the Cirsui, Cour,.
Iae C'mmoa"eal'b} Adjourned sase. from the Su-
Charles Tate. i r eoaaiy' ia" ''' " ''1
"A kuls wa made, ny tie Superio, Court OF law for
washington eouatyai he IN ,anee Of ihe ney 10,
t1e Commonwealth agaia,t Charles TATE ot ,at eoun.
~, 10 81 ew cause, why norrDaol, in tho nature
oil writ o. quo ,cdrTaito, should b. flied az Aus
aiw' Tor acting as jusse Of the pesc FIR sSii eou-
~, after having acted as depu sheriff OF tbs came
since he qualih ID such ju.tise o. the return o.
tie rule, the following facts were agreed. Tba IN.
aid CHARLES Tate, on the 2O.h Juy, 1902, Qualified
as aJusc Of The peace and ed sUch tina, on the
10Th, March, lS03 he qualified AMI acted as eputv
sheriff the county for year auj after bis term OF
service 80 GU resumed his The ench; and SO
continued 10 asi, alternately, in the the her
character, at various intervals until tho FL ,reh
1921, al which lime he al United qualified spl act.
ed, a. puy sher Of the county, under John Sus-
ton the high sheriff, until The 18Th Mlreh, 1928
since which 10 the time OF obtaining tho rule he b.
acted as JiSice OF tn peace his old commits sion
ano qnaheain OF 1902. TIA, under he last appoln
ment he continued TO act for the two years wi hon,
qualifying or giving bond 10 his principal a, IN.
cominsnce OF the second year, he having srmed
The ohce from Houston, and he entered into bond and
security, la the hrst instance, for the whole term Of
MS continuance Ia ofice that Houston hmaelf yyas
not conmi 'sioned and did qualify as huh sheriff
he second year. but gave bond for tho eoiec ion OF
he taxe, only foe tue second year under tho com.
mi 'sion "
On this state of facts the superior court adjourned the
following questions TO this for novelty and Difficult
ty.
l. Is the acting of the defendant the second year of
John tous'ons sheriffaty such acceptance of the
ONCE oil deputy sheriff his Office of Justice
oil the peace, that he could act therein without
the authority OF a new commissions!
q Independently OF the Act OF Assembly, passed ihe
10th oil February, 1922 entitled, can act concerning
the dsquahcaions OF justices of the peace was the
said Charles Fate disqualified from acting as Justice
of the peace for ashington county, after having
repeatedly accepted the appointment OF deputy sheriff.
BY COURT:
AS to the first question, taking il refer TO the ope
ration OF the act OF February 1922 upon the facts
large majority OF the judges OF opinion, that the
under contract made the first year with the high
sheriff tor the whole term, such an acceptance
oil once after the passage OF that act az, under H.
vacated his office OF Justice OF Peace. He continued
in office after the date OF that act, but il was under the
old contracts and court thinks that there should have
been some distinct act of acceptance by taking new
oath, giving new bond, making new contract or o.
herwse i'm order TO bring him within the terms of that
law. II therefore answers the first question in the
negative.
Upon ,hs second question, there ha, been great dit
terence Of opinion among the judges, both last
anu presen, term; The cOuri then being equally divided
ana there bsing now dvision OF teo judges eight,
Every one agrees, that at common atU the two offices
are totally Incompatible, and Tn the acc psnce of he
one vacaIe' the oher. The CASE Of Amofy Us, the
Juuee oil G'oce'e, Ia ,hi' court, decides his pm
elpe In he case OF deputy clerk by the uoaniIuous
opinion Of the judge; and hat deputy sheriff who
is recognized by the law a. public officer and WHO
10 directly responsible TO the COON eourt for the d
discharge oi many OF his dules is st sfonker. Tn.
Po0t oil differences does not lie here but arises out of
Other considrrations Thus, Ia Is sail thai the off -
OF High Sheriff IL, by the express provisions of
concerning sherfis, TO be filed from the county cou,
bench; thai 1t could sves have been the mention o,
vssss Fl as o.s TO NIX ns hs Of thai flee
qualihcAIon OF the accepted, that such cons,tue
'ion would sweep away the whole beach OF jI.,i.
Gee, and render what was ia ended az r,waJd ),
services, disqualification for the oiics 10 which he
services were rendered. That the ae, aliuded
20 ha' always 6eea coas.rued TO exempt Tho eff r
oil High Sh-r II from he operation Of the c IN
moo law incpie; sad assuming such cons fuc,i,n 30
be The right one, there il Why the suhorii
nate ONCE oil h sams KIN should fols the na
tdre 0 me princpa' Taa, H. pJinI iaei, suc Ia
be.n too uader=ts nd ng and ss1Ivd us.z Of t,s nm
Try, aud ii u to3 laie disturb since the eo.
'-on error may Ia tls, a. In other e mel e the Law
but MfJoh'y OF IN oOuTi are oil opinion, iha, IN
office oil Deputy Sheriff sIauds und Cur iaVy u,,o
dhsren, footing from tina, Of Hisb SlsriG; and lhA
noue OF TIE Teas- nj osheh Urged no favor If b.
er, apply TO The former ofse. The aet of A,s.Islv
alud d 10 embraces the case oil High SAenH aIon-
an - as they agree, II must be tOusruvd a. 10 s
10" nm 20 re uhe MS office Jisice OF ,he Peace
Ia personal pru ilose whica ight not 10 be .xe Il q
l-e l." c4ss tht Gtlse OF II gu she III son ja.uce
OF ne peace, OUT ~ 10 siieD as ~ tIs DcpI,y AID iuy
nigh Sh h may seles has deputy roiu any sjas. Of
society. IL the LASER Voitnaiily a csp al exstcsss
az ofiTcs clearly Incompatible win tie Oh. he hold
'heFe isnO good rea'On tor smpng hun frotn a,
o e'th'n Of souDd and ackUowlsdgea principi-
which wJu Rot 20 far ~ we k 10 and ,e,rov m
phoSIpie IL That a. 10 ,i usage H. ous b. 10 have
n weight, unless has bsea gen raj uSront,.ulec
Sho uniform lhat thefs 10 $50 eVidsnce oil aDy usage
10 'his case tf which they dic ally t.ks noee
and, 40 lar as Their Information ads IAsfe mas
no utlofm, or ubqussh.nsd us4gs sut.c
N hs c1nuny, meg believe, - he sct Of the 26
rebuaty, 1922, alleges, hal diff isn y, aeces IN re-
id'ion iheseo nave proValisd ia off fent parts o
the Common @eaib"- hat this act IL Iu.rsIv a. an
pears UPON IT. face declaration the law IA iii,
cese-and thai, the law is clear iDdtsou,.
'1ole' ADD bounded upon vice p'iacp oil policy; anc
10 aci OF Iegi'Aiurs, OF UNIFORM, rsoogoz I'd
ano"iedsed usage GO trolling ~ il rs aJlrbed; hey
sIo OF opinion, mar he sscoEd question propouDded b.
no superior court Il Washington county ough, 10 h,
answered IN tbs affirmative. Ia 'hs opinion, Jutse,
ID mean, j. f. Own, L.igh, II. Taylyr Field,
OPshuf' W. bfowne, SUMNER, PStker aud otken
br1ukh, ecneusfed. Judge Scott delivered hi, own
oP'nion' dissenting ON the M j,ry OF sbe court.
(Io be Continued
COnyNUyNTCATED
Next Monday Is the Chesterfield Elec ion IL ba.
been the invariabe custom in this county for the Ma
gl,'s,es on such days 10 go upon the bench trans
ia Aasat. - al.