Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-03-23

''Vn,r by a general denial. am warranted IN
~ ,ho, The mcmorallst was not authorized 10 use
9!"7,,. Of the gentlemen who arc SO unceiemoniou'9
- ; 81 M support OF this charge. Nhel cai'u as
ni' ,ley vii speak for themselves, aud nave no
v' son of the result. II tLe:e be any Ole oil thca
s'.i,a,- under defeat, has been led by sell iove
va M ~. wounded vanity by at,ribuing my Judgment
[ in favor Of my son. must cNires'n MY surprise
,rh better ground for comli inis OF inc )nfies.
tie t moment took m, sea; on lie bench ald II
ti'"' rule 20 treat the bar, witnesses ana suiIors
." itcrc,s and TO exact TIE same course oil COLI
81 via ,tcu The consequence has been unbrokcn
a-''l l,gmoay between the bench aid BAR Do,h IN
e.. n court. In jury trials, ny course IS 10 inter
I,,l, a. rossbic 10 give Tic parties fair play
' nS,rber Of the bar can be produced, who Will
a. " lo,r,cd from this course in favor OF my son,
,-l nj , q vrass error insiead OF leaning on the
.! 49,, ,,,sric would DO, his general course is to
t-' @rar The court and trust the jury; whilst that
st' ',,s- :,e.Gen is 10 invoke the aid Of the
...c,ery iurn even 10 stopping the adverse coun-
,c,l,, statement oil his clients case; and ask
' 49," t.I n almost every which is lost before
lfanv man. counsel, party, or other, can be
o.. lr bar OF this house Is witness, anu on his
...--,' my door any act Of corrupt parali.y,
o4~ .- ~ ~ confront him and prove his testimony
,' ,... the frs. charge quoted above, the answer
... admit. that this money was received and
l''-, -,l,, IN The csaie OF his nicstatc on 18th
e.'' ..,!ai these sctfC JaciaS were sued out
I'''.'i' recovered against Farrov, in order
o .,,,rt OH! # tn, money" On 10Th February,
s,ir ilt:s> were sued out, aud at the iirst
- ,lcl II could ne done, creditors bill was
me.'D' ~ .s., for the administration Of Farr0ws
"N1 - I.,yered Immediately; and al the same term
'N''.., ros ,as.el ' consent, directing commits
az ''' l .. ,,..ll II his cbtS'-that he permit
t' f,, cases in whch his sen was attorney TO De
s-,.cJ A. Office iud-mcnts-lhat, as party, ne ten
t,l M i,sua5e plea. and moved 10 set them ASIDE
nd .al lie had tie night 10 give preferences ana una,
il5 done ,o,!rg mere than exercise ms cndouoicd
. aud tim; II was III, pleasure SO 10 det!at lie taG
~ roa>,ns than the mere - sic rolo' IS adminlstra-
. ai.s.dicca a that reason Is. had myself oecn
s,>el iyr the preferred parties. knew that their
l.,1, were a,i and unccn,gorered. 10 the others
MAS .raa or. and the judgments were ii years o!d.
7s irm,r were for debts due by farrow and Harris
tte latter by rarrow alone" Thus il seems that
l.e Scott dld give preference, which, he says, he
right 10 90; and the inference is, that that prefer
e was priority of claim upon The funds IN his hands
Al Tie character Of the conduct OF Judge Scott IN
e .yigg q preference in five cases IN which nc hau
best, counsel, lie admits and what must be thought Oh
conduct of Judge who files plea as administrator
--e il Judge and IS Jwd~c removes tie cause 10
...tt.s court, especially when that plea was only hed
10 afford the preference, These admissions and PAL
,lt.e deductions from Judge SCOTS version oil me mat
ill., Eut what is the evidence upon this SUBJECT In
-an Horncr proves, page 504 Of Journa) Inc irst
/ MT Of Fauquec, at TIE September Term Of ISL
The debts were due from Nimrod Farrow and Richard
IA r To revive the judgments, wits oil Scre thcdS
st the administrator OF NImrod Farrow were issued.
Judgment. Lad not beer rendered agains, Richard ilar
rs lie was not an inhabant of the county Of Eau
iger AZ the October Term, in 1885, Of the Circuit
SUPERIOR Court. &c. sc, of Fauqucr the seven causes
were ear placed upon the docket Of office judgments
The oiicc judgments in the in which Mr. II. f.
Scott counsel for the plaintiff, were not set aside
Two special pleas the handwriting of the admnistra.
tor we're flied m the cause in which was counsel Tor
tie plaintiff The pleas may be BY referring to the
papers IN the hands of witness attending; and
dtr wa made by the administrator acting in his judi
rnl character directing the 10 be removed to the
c rcti; superior Court &c &c, OF Spottsylvania
ike order was made in the cause No o. By the acts
mentioned priority given to the plaintiffs repre-
ser'eI by Il. f. Scott
rPa.e i22 of tic Journal) Thomas /. Moore proves:
Ihe farther given by Judge Scott Tor dis
nJii>hag between these cases and the cases repre-.
seated by X. T. Scott, 10 wit, that the cases removed
fourteen years Old and that the cases OF Robert
L. Scott were for debts due by Harris well as Far
TOW, Of account here, because his judgments and
a, Of Wnstons represented by me- were all alike rem
dercd in the fall of lS2l and they all alike founded
on obligations executed by both Harris and farrow, if
indeed that circumstance be Of any the least import
aHcc.''
Thus appears, that Judge SCOTS Justification, based
upon the date of the original judgments and that the
i've cases first named based upon debts due from
farrow and Harris jointly and the latter By Farrow
alone is in direct conflict with The facts proven above
The original notes were all signed By Harris and Far
row ard lie oricna! judi mcnts Of the date
other evidence mig DC referred TO upon this SUBJECT
bu, General reference is made TO the testimony
IA n upon the 2nd charge and embraced in the Jour
nal. Thus preference has been given, and the CIR
clmsauccs attending il are such to impress upon the
minds Of The undersigned, that there has been an in
proper exercise Of judicial power, if not OF corrupt
laray. II vii! not do 10 say, that Judge Scott filed
the pleas believing that they issuabe: il would be
q poor compliment to his legal ability. They were filed
gcy 70 Eve the preference which Judge Scott says nc
had right 10 give.
II will not do to say, that this fund now in Judge
SCOT: hands, subject to those judgments which
priority by the preference gIven-Tha, fact was as
.! known al that time now, and if true the pre-
.r-uce WAS mere shadow, and reason could exist
% Delaying the other TWO Judgments II has been at
tempted 10 .usain the position that, as this fund was
asciaaijy TO be applied by Farrow 10 the partnership
tJsn FarTo~ Harris, is only TO be applied IN
lint say pursuant is pretended, to the law of Con-
r:.s making the appropriation Of about $4,000. Did
Judge Scott lhnk So when he gave the preference =
H. tells you IN his answer, that he recovered them as
administrator OF Farrow, and that creditors bill was
filed cr the administration of Farrows assets. What
a- The facts Of the case, respecting this money recover
I'd 70a Jones Jones, in his answer, tells you, that
%s9p'EluG III washington, lie met win raFfo" anu
Others and that Farow asked him TO 90 security
70 tond, with Others, to the Government conditioned
To- 30 truc disbursement of the money (a5out S7370O)
wa'2h was appropriated by Congress; that upon the
condition of his (Fa.rows) procuring the money, he
w'aA! le, Jones have 81 900 The money receiv-
q Jy f.9row and Jones executed bis note for 81 900,
winch note Fasrow received, but Jones did not re-
teyc the whole amount. 1t became debt due
i'aM Jones 10 Farrow, and the only inference to be
c'3Ea from Jones version is, that he was to have
re use OF this money in consideration of his entering
security 70 the Government. Farrow dies, and an at.
oeaaent sued out against Jones effects, and the
s3a If nearly So 600 recovered by Judge Scott,
= administrator Of Far,ow. Said Jones, in his an
sHer, raised the question, whether ne should not be
acemniied for the disbursement Of The sum IN his
"i"ts, as ae Jones, likely to suffer by reason OF
We E.saqPcatioa Of this money by Fa.row, more es-
i~c.ally rs he understood large amount had been
nf-Iery dsbursed by Far,ow. Notwithstanding
U.s. Vie money decrced and paid to Judge Scott,
as grroo administrator, and, Judge Scott says,
'edior suit was brought at his request for the ad
astraton o! Fa:Iows assets. The undersigned,
-eiore, cannot agree with the ajority of the
'ee saying, that the charge is unsustained by evi
csale.
especiias the second specification, we would refer