Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1844-01-25

From The Raleigh Register JAM l6
THE PORTSMOUTH RAIL ROAD AND MR. Rl'Es
The facts of this case they appeared on the recent
investigation before the Judges of The Supreme Court
are as follows:
In 1912 Rochelle IL Smith obtained judgment
against the Portsmouth and Roanoke Raj. Road Com
pany, in the Superior Court of Halifax, tor about
500 900 Under an execution on this Judgement the
Bridge belonging the Company at Weldon was sold
for about $780, 600; and under another execution the
road including the soil and supersructure lying IN
NORTHAMPTON County, was sold FRAScIs +. RIvEs,
Esq Sussex County, Virginn, having for valuable
consideration become the assignee OF The bids, and
having obtained The Shers deed consulted with seve
raj of tie most eminent counsel in Virginia, as to the
rights he had acquired by the purchase, and the Sheriff
conveyance lie advised that he had undoubtedly
become the proprietor of the entire superstrncture in
GLIDING the rails iron, &C. and not being ALE 10 make
with the Company ANNUALLY satisfactory arrangement
respecting his clam, he the 6:h of this month, took
some hands and proceeded TO remove certain portions
of the rails and iron forming the supersrucure SO as
to make breach in the track and stop the running nf
the cars lie tn nrcupon arrested by warrant, ard
brought before Justice of the Peace OF NorthamP'
ton, charged with misdemeanor, and by the Justice
he was required TO enter INTO recognIznncc himself IN
$50 900 and suretes in like sum- conditional TOR his
appearance at Northampton Superior Court, and Sc
condy, that he should in the meantime abstain from
running the superstrucure Of the road This recogn-
zance Mr. R,vcs refused TO give, and was therepon
committed to the custody of the Sheriff 1t being very
desirable as we'll TO MIR. Rives as 10 the Company,
that The question OF right should be at decided the
Sheriff brought that gentleman to this place, when an
application was made the Chief Justice, for habeas
corpus gning three for his nterercnce frat
that in removing the rails and ron he had only exer-
cised right, and ought not 10 have been arrested al
all. Secondly, that the amount ct bail required wac
excessive and thirdly that the condition OF the required
recognizance unprecedented and illegal The writ
granted, returned before three Judges and argued
By The counsel After conference between the judge
the Chief Justice announced that the question OF right
on the part Of Mr.. Rives, of much importance
and difficulty, that they were unwilling TO decide il
this application, and preferred that it should be
brought before them Court, in regular form, and
that they should therefore bind Mr. Rives in the
sum Of $4,000 with sure,ies in like sum, which was
accordingly done. "After the opinion given, Mr.
Riyes in open Court made statement, by the permits
sion of the Judges disclaming all connection with The
Petersburg Rail Road Company acquitling that Com
pany of all responsibility for, participation in his
proceedings, and that he had acted solely on his own
account and for the assertion OF what he advised
BY Counsel his undoubed rights in the premises.
We very much regret to in of the news
papers, very exaggerated accounts Of this transaction,
accompanied with coarse abuse Of Mr.. Rives. This
course is entirely without justification or excuse. Mr.
Rives gentleman ohgh character and respectable
y he is seeking to obtain what he advised belongs to
hun, in mode which he is advised is lawful. Wheih-
he is rightly advised not, must be determined by
the proper tribunals of the country; and all attempts to
nllame The public mind in the matters, and STIR up
prejudice by n1ammatory publications, are, IN ou
judgment, highly censurable. Whether this gentle
man be right his claims not, he is surely not Tor
moment TO be COMPOUNDED with wantcn vIolator OF
the laws; and it is gross injustice to speak oil him IN
the terms of violence and defamation which we nave
been panied to used respecting him IN papers gene
rally remarkable for proprieiy.
Who is RICH, or who is wrong, we know not The
Rail Road may be altogether right and Mr. R'ves al
together wrong. Should this prove upon judicial in
ves,isa,on be SO, justice will be done. But we in
sst that Mr. Ryes has just much right to prevent for
what he deems his property against Rail Road Com
pany, as agains, an individual. He must in either
case take the course his counsel advises, and must
abide The consequences but for SO doing, he is in mel
Their the one case the other, 10 be treated felon
or 4 rufian.