Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-03-23
u-nGE scnrr,s CASE.

10 whom was referred the memorial Oh Martin T.
Brooke, prctcrring charges against the lea joa
Scott, Judge Of the General Court, &c.-howeyer re
luctant 10 proong, delay the action OF the House o
Delegates arc impeed, by sense OF duty, 10 dissent
from majority of said Committee, in their second ,c.
solution. II becomes necessary therefore. to assign
some of the reasons. which impeIed Us 10 d!e,eit
conclusion. That the House may more easily uulcr.
stand the views which we entertain, we shall briefly
state the charge as contained in the memorial. Win
Judge SCOTS answer thereto The memcria 81.
FORTH that
"4h. In the year , Judge Scott applied 10 lie
County Court OF Fauqucr for letters OF admnisisan
on the Estate OF the late Nmrod FaIow claiEln. 10
be creditor of said Farrow. Some months after ie
administered, it came to be rumored, that he had e.
covered large sum Of money for Farrow. Fa.row'.
judgment creditors in Fauquier county, Immediately
commenced suits against h Administrator To revive
their judgments, in order 10 particp pate in This unt y
pccted fund. Divers writs Of scire rciaS issued
by The creditors and being duly executed placed
the Court docket simultaneously, and in tic follow
ing order =
al. Matthew Winfree rs. Farrow's Administrator
so. William e Cole and Company same
-. Harvey Heth's Executor same.
4. George Grcenhow same.
rs. James Winston rs. same.
sc. Thomas Prddie's Executor rs. same.
81. n. Davidson (for Dupree) rs. same.
"Thomas J.. Moore was the Attorney marked in tie
case of Prddie's Executor rs. N. Farrow-nman lor.
son (for Dupree) rs. Nimrod Farrow's Exccutor-Ro-
bert E. Scott the Attorney marked in each Of tie
other five cases. At the October term, 1885, Of tie
Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chanccry for Eau.
quer county, Judge Scott prcsiding,) the foregoing
cases against him, rs Administrator OF Nmrod Farrow
stood upon the docket Office judgements. At that
term, the following entry appears upon the Journal o
the Court, in the 10 which Moore and Homer
weres mar ed as Counsel: THE Judge n The (oun
being situated, as 10 render improper, IN his rt
msnt for him 10 preside al the trial Of these cases,
ordered that Mey he remorcd 10 the Circuit Superior
Comt Of La,c and Chrncery Of spotsylrania counfy Tia,
being one Of The counties wtthn The fJM and oGiomns
Circuit The in which Robert +. Scott was
marked as Attorney, were permitted TO remain on lie
docket, and became judgments Of the Court al that
term, against the Estate Of Nimrod Farrow The charge
against Judge Scott growing out Of this specification
is, that he, sitting Judge, unscrupulously if not
corruplly used his judicial power, as TO give tie
clients of his own son priority OF claim over The
clients of Imam Horner and Thomas l.. Moore hcY,
at the time, being all abreast in for Judgment
and all equally entitled If, under the pretext Of deli
cacy, he removed the OF Moore and liofncr,
should not the dclicacy have operated in the
of Robert t. Scott, his son; IL did not, however,
and the clients of Robert E. Scott got priority Of judy
ment and of claim.
g Your memorialist has heard the most bitter com
plants of his Partially on the Beach There exists an
extensive want Of confidence in his integrity among
the people, and widespread belief exists that the
clients of his Robert have distinguished advantages
the clients of other Attorneys. You. mcmoria!.,l
expressly charges, from his communications with tie
people of Fauqnier and from conversations with MANY
Lawyers, who practice before Judge Scott, that lie
unduly and corruptly partial, the Bench where Ii,
son is concerned as Counsel In proof Of this charge,
he avouches the Of all the Senior members of the
local Bar OF Fauqucr county :-Thomas l.. Moore,
lnman Horner, John P. Phillips, Samuel Chiffon, ".
w. Wallace, and Joseph Horner'
IT, ~ Oh
a written communication, addressed to the Spca-er
and members Of the House Of Delegates from, which
we extract the following:
'ln answering the fourth Charge il IN be consitcsi
waste OF time 10 notice the nsnua ton that | with
held the knowledge of the unexpected receipt Of sun
of money recovered by me- Administrator of Nimro
Farrow, and left the creditors to such information ..
rumor might convey 10 them. This money was ie
ccivcd by Mr.. Boulin Of the Senate as my At,oruey
and transmitted TO me through the Banks II is cncre
on my books, TO the credit of my intcsiatc on the l
day of December, 1894 On the och February, l-3J.
writs of Scire tacias were sued several pl.-
ments recovered against Farrow in order to get pay
ment Out OF this money, and at Tic first momcn, al
which it could be done, creditors bill was filed At
my request, for the Administration of Farrows
answered Immediately, and at the term
der was passed by consent, directing Commissioner
take all account of his debts, which order was published
in three newspapcrs-tEc National Intel,encer bco.
charge OF Partially in the disposition Of the wris Of
scire facas, like some of those which precedc il. ao
surd upon its face The charge is, that seven Wis
scire aeics, 10 revive judgments obtained T.. Farros
in his Lifetime, stood the docket of the Cogst
which preside, Office judgments that flee, plea,
in two OF Them and removed them for trial 10 anottI
Court, and filed pleas in the other five but pcr.(
ted them to remain undcfendcd. II will be seen (at1
glance, that in regard to these cases, held the Yose
relation OF party and Judgc-a position not Of NJ .te,
ing, but one into which was forced By circumt lnce
ask the Lawyers Of the House to look at the rcco-
and say which of the acts performed by wcc IN 2,
official, and which in my private capacity-what col
alone have been done by me as party, and "hrs
Judgc-what had power 10 DO as party, and wYl;l
was bound to do as Judge, and then say, whether
Judge, did more than any other Judge would have be-.
bound TO do The all stood as Office ildgmcnt.
the complaint is, that permitted some of them 70 l.
confirmed Would any other Judge have set them AISLE
unless motion were made, an issuabe plea rendered
| the party Would any other Judge have compc!io
me as party, to tender such plea, and make ,uc-
motion II not, then in permitting them TO rcEla
undcended did nothing more than had a right 10 DO
as party. AS TO those which were set aside when .
party rendered an issuabe plea, and moved set then
aside; could any other Judge have refused the moi
Did the other party suffer by having those plea, tela
my court, rather than The court TO which novel -
cases for trial. Suppose had removed them all lci.f
court oil SPotssylranla, as office judgments, 1cu! i
defence to others, have been the same: Suppose ai
pleaded TO them all in Fauquier and them TO Spot
sylvania as issues; could not J. the moment 'h'f
were docketed, have waived the pleas in some. 'al
held on to them in othersi Are the lawyers OF ln
House yet to learn that, as administrator had The ls
TO give preference 10 some of these juJgmen. crel,
IN spite OF any thing which any party any court e"
do' and what more have done than exercise til; u'
doubted right: II is sufficient answer to ihosc VIZ
were postponed 10 say, such was my pleasure bD'
have better reasons for The exercise Of the poweT WA
winch the law entrusted as administrator, tan -
rofo,' all sufficient as that reason is had myself JeA
counsel Tor The preferred parties knew that thei. e'
were just and uncontrorerlcd; to the others I W.
stranger, and the judgments were fourteen years on
The former were for debts due by Farrow and li'iis
jointly The latter by Farrow alone. AS late j. he I'
1873, both Farrow and Harris had not only 1e't'"-
edsed the justice Of these debts but had made 'f''
sion Tor the payment Of them by assigning TO me . w.
tee, funds which then aud still are ex -''' :