Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-01-27

the responsibility from the attorney the Sheriff. and
make the duty OF the latter difficult II would be
the client He willing to make the misapplication
OF the funds of client by attorney, high msde-
mcanor; but he could not agree bill like this He
would rather adopt law to hang fraudulent attorney,
than sanction the evils which this bill would produce
in regard TO the community and the Sheriff..
Mr. Gibson said, that had the bill been confined to
in which the plaintiff and defendant resided i'm the
same county, he would have voted for il. In the
try generally was supposed that, where the was
out OF the county, the attorney collected the money! but
net otherwse and he doubted if there a
40 WHICH lawyer not out OF the county collected his
clients money, without being ordered TO do. client
would not intrus TO lawyer out of the county,
unless he had unbounded confidence i'm him IL incon
veniences had been experienced still he held that it
better TO bear partial evils than adopt system of
general Inconvenience. The bill under consideration
would render the business complicated, and in
Sheriff lost his order, he might be obliged pay
the sums collected twice over. IL would greatly in
crease the trouble of the client, who protected
der the present law. He hoped, therefore, the bill
would be rejected
Mr.. Whether observcd that the gentleman from Cul.
pepper had said he would vote for the hill, il il
confined TO i'm which plaintiff and defendant were
in the same county. But i'm such CAGES the law
not so much needed. They were within reach Of the
client; but at distance II would he security TO the
client. As to the opinion Of the gentleman from Isle
Of Wight, that hand whiting, could not be proved, he
believed that Powers of Attorney could now be spnt
from one State to another without any difficulty. He
could not perceive the and 10 rauds
or forg eries, by which the Sheriff might be made TO
suffer, he believed the criminal law provide sufficient
ly for them.
Mr. Jones 10 assgn the reason whv he should
vote against the indefinite pos,ponement Several gem
emen had exhibited great seHsi,veness this sub
ect in regard to it's bearing on the character OF the
profession OF the law. He really did not participate in
the feeling. But If there were any thing in this hill
deroga'ory TO the profession, he should scarcely sup
pose that the House, being mostly composed of law
yers, would entertain II. The gentleman from
Isle of Wight had attributed great inconv eniences
to the operation OF the b and declared that would
place greaer responsibility on the Sheriff Bot Mr.. j.
would ask whether IL was not why the gen.
temsn sheuid vote for IT, that /. would shit The
sponsibi'ity from the Atornies TO the Sherfs' He
had never known but Two cases Of msapplcation of
their clients funds by Attorne.. But doubt other
cases were known TO other gentlemen, and the commu
nifty ought to be protected from such acts He had
heard Of case in which Attorney, after charging
tees, commission, &C.. retained the balance of the
amount for services W ich he 'ould recollect.
Mr.. Atkinson said the gentleman hal advised him to
shit the responsibilities from the Aornes 10 the She
riff. For hls part he believed the Attornies I'M
dersood the law better than the Sberhs, and ought to
bear the responsibilities Of their station.
Mr.. Jones said the gentleman misconceived him.
He had alluded to the case supposed by the gentleman
from Isle of Wight, in which order having beeu
sen, to Sheriff. the client should ate deny his
hand writing. The responsibility in such would
be transferred from the Attorney to the Sheriff
MIR. Aiki8son had understood the gentleman cor
tecy In his part of the country, the Attornes had
no ices Tor extra services, nor percentage, except in
cases out oil the county. They generally houg hit the
bill large enough when it contained the fee, warrant
tax, and commissions.
Mr.. Williams of Shenandoah, said that IL the power
to collect his clients money. taken from the At
torn-y, the power would be taken away many cases.
10 collect at ALL In the Of his practice,
he knew that he had often cone demands by Civ
ing time, which would never have been collected had
the demands been placed in the hands Of the Sheriff
IL clients wished to avoid paying the commission the
had only TO insert condition in their instructions to
their Attornies.
Mr.. Preston should vote against the Indefinite post
ponement, out Of regard the wish OF he gentleman
from Pitsyvana who desired that the bill might pro-
gress TO it's engrossment, and be fully discussed
and In order that it nigh, he decided UPON in a full
House But he should not ultimately vote for hs bill
| Mr. Witcher said he wished every gentleman t.
vote on the molten to postpone, as he would the
DaI passage.
| Mr. Pres'on--Then shall vote for Its indefinite
pos,ponemen'.
The question then taken on the motion of Mr.
Williams of S. and decided in the negative, by ayes
aud noes, 40 to 73.
Mr.. Shell said, that il seemed to he the opinion o
many gentlemen, that something must he done now
to alter the law on this subject In the part of tn
country from which he came the subjectihad not he Ell
stirred. But, il seemed must be passed, h
would propose amendment to the bill to confine
to where the client lives within the county,
which suit is brought. While, hand, this a
mendment would prevent the Inconvenience n.
luded to by the gentleman from Shenandoah, he trust
ed that, the other, il would sppease those who
friendly to the bill. II would simply operate EN-
power the lawyer to collect money. where II NOR
convenient Tor him to collect IL. IT this provision
some similar one, not adopted, he should vote
gainst the bill
MIR. Summers moved TO lay the bill on the table
which moiOn was REJECTED.
The question Mr. Shells amendment, was thei
erided in the negative, on div-ion-51 to Sc.
MIR. Gimer said that as much time had already bee
expended upon this subject, he would express hi
views upon il in lew words. Ii known hi
constituents, il not generally to the House, that h
was a Iawyer-and az lawyers seemed to be consider
ed such terrible fellows it proper that he shoui
give his reasons for voting against the bL lie coul
see no good purpose which il would probably effect
and he did not think the frauds alluded 10, occurred IL
one case GU of FIVE thousand; and when this dos occur
why not subject lawyers TO penalties for frauduleD
acts toward their clients This bill would have suc
operation, would 1t remedy the evils against which
il levelied. Itsppied only to collections OF
ney on Judgments. But |, was we'll known. that hal
| the money collected by lawyers in this Common
wealth. was collected without suits. Its only effsc
would be, that IL would give clients the additiona
trouble OF giving authority to their aornies in writing
instead OF verbally. II could effect Other change. II,
willing 20 tie Up the hands OF the lawyers "a
prevent fraud, and in cases OF delinquency, TO punisi
them with fine aud imprisonment Generally, il woul,
be found that clients, when they place their drmsod
ia the hands of lawyer, had confidence In his inieg
ry II II otherwise, thew would not entrust hin
with the cole ction Of heir debts These coosidera
tons induced him to oppose the bill, believing that II
would only increase the trouble of the client, without
at all affecting the lawyer.
Mr., Eppes ehomld vote for this hill with a. great
pleasure, he did for any bill in bis life and for
the reason-cuous, as u might seem which in
duced the gentleman from Abemarle 10 vote ogainst
u. lis said the ms OF fraud not
than ous in 5000. II 20, much the hetter--
but let ne prevent any who may creep into the
SEES ia witch exOrbitani fees charged, and utter
est on the whole amount ALEC These cases ought to
be prevented II very difficult TO contend
"ith lawyer, and people were generally obliged to