Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-10
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE.

FlUoulER SPRINGS, july 5h, l.49
The Senale TOOK up Tor consideration paH q
of the Revised Code.
Chapter 47-"Oi new cnun'ies," &c.
Mr.. STRINGER proposed TO amend the i
section, on "node II takin1 poll Tor and az ansl
new county" SO as TO allow The voters resting
within the bounds OF The proposed new county
alone 10 Vote upon The question OF divisiou-,he
same as reported by the Revisors--which was
decided in The nesaiiv.
Chapter 4S-'Jus;ices II The peace
Section l-"Mode OF appointing them"
Mr. PITTS moved that the number OF maei>-
crates in new counties should be Seven instead
OF twelve" as al present. Hostages 3, noes q.
Chapter 49-"Oi SheTitis, Sefg,anls, CoIonei>
and Conslabies."
Section 80 was amentrd on motion OF Mr.
SHACkLEFOkD, BY sitSins out "oy III pro-
per Stale 10 be severed"
On motion OF Mr.. SrANARD, in same sec
tion, "Indian corn was made liable 10 be levied
on after Inc 18Th OF October"
On motion oil Mr.. WlTCHER, The Senate al
jourDed.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
The House resumed the discussion d the
amendment Of MI. Watson 10 the frs section Of
chapter ll6 on general rules, As 10 Inc creation
and limitation OF estates and their qualities" 50
as 10 provide that, in case OF gins Of Slaves,
where the donor and donee live together at the
lime OF the gilt, possession al the plac. OF resi-
dence shall not be 81 ficlen possession within
The meaning of the section
Mr.. row MES gave his reasons why This new
rule OF evidence should not be adopted reversing
the long established practice OF Virginia Instead
OF proceeding 10 ascertain whether the transaction
IS lair aud honest, as we once did, we have now
lnder this innovation, TO decide whether the
fhpr at thp inns no Il,
though The donec may have taken means 10 con.
summate the possession, such as listing the PFC
perry with The commissioner &c. Mr.. L. a
gued that this new TUe was not calculated 20
protect creditors. Instead OF callns on honor
able men 10 attest the honesty OF The transaction,
parties will resort TO writings, as shifts IL effect
their fraudulent purposes. This mere experiment
was contrary 10 the practice OF The last ccntur
and might lead 10 ev consequences, which we
could not foresee. Very often sons live with
their fathers, though theS have srpa ate proper
~; but now, under this role, they have 10 20 L.
court, lay down in writing every thing they d,
and all family Confidence is broken up. Should
we do any thing TO weaken these social u.>7-
Mr. I. appealed 10 ,h- House 10 strike on The
whole provision in regard 10 personal properly
on this subject
Mr. MONCURE OF S. said We were all look.
ing TO the interes; oil the Stale, and The promo
ton OF honest ami fair dealing He accepted
Mr.. Wasnns amendment, coufinine the proyi-
sion 10 sl0uss. TINS H. thought rl,nr. tor the
rules oil commoa law weaid best answer for
other species oil per>onal property. MI NJ.
PROCEEDED 10 examine TIE ptoprieiy of Inc com
miuee's amendment, AID 10 show tina, tn. &c vas
danger OF fraud IRON pretended gifts tina, ,hsy
we're often set up by one par, u the family
against another, and against a bone ne rrsd,.i,
who makes advances on the faith Il II" p,oprt.
~, bat who is afterwards deieaieu 10 G'> lls.a ~,
parol evidence and loose conVersaJiun These
frauds may easily De effected und.i me presen,
system, and the evil should De reuledied-
Where is the objection 10 the committees pro-
vision2 Parties living together can sill make
gifts, but lei II be by deed or will recorded, mol
BY loose paro evidence or Idle convrrsaron.--
Let j, be in black and while, 10 preYeul fraud.
An honest transaction in lands is not valid, IN
less put down 10 writing TO prevent iraud and
perjury. Do Inc parties there Complaint Again,
writing is required in cases III promises 10 paw
the debt oil another, and that case IS certainly NOT
one-ienln as strong as The present.. Mr.. Nj
cued numerous analogous cases. II he com.
miIees provision does no, remove The cvli com
planned Of lei the gentleman from Piusylvapia
Drug FORWARD better, II not, let us adept the
proposed provision.
Mr.. TONNES alluded 10 The difference No
49, A'A'' - o'u hILusel III tDlS MI,
NJ. proposed new plan to remove the evil
be (Mr. ~ was willing 10 lean on the rules oil
the common law, and the law as ii stands. He
was opposed 10 The experiment
Mr.. IRVING said the accepted amendment Of
Mr.. WATSON and the admissions of Mr.. MON
CURE in excluding all personal property bu,
slaves. had given blow 10 the new principle
which the committee had proposed The rea
soning Of the gentleman from Stafford went 10
prove The mpfoprieiy of the principle /, was
great error to suppose that possession might
not be made evidence of lille in case. of such
gifts. Mr. |. thought there was much more dan.
ger OF fraud under this new iron rule, than under
the present law. Though you may prove the
ownership Of the donee, who has fed and clothed
Inc slave, yet under this rule he is bound 10 be
deprived Of the title. II makes one fact over.
.,ue . .nousand other facts, proving possession
we naa oeuer adhere 10 the provision reported
oy tne heVsors-tne provision Of the committee
declares that, although tie party be in posses.
sion OF the property, as proved by uodep;able
authority, still there is no possession.
Mr. FERGUSON was in favor OF the nr,,,;nye
as bad been shown by the ubanswcrable ar,u
msnt of Mr.. MONCURE; but he thought ,ba,
the principle should be applied 10 slaves as we'll
as other personal properly. The reason wa,
in each case precisely the same. MIR. F. pro.
ceeded TO reply to the arguments of Messrs
TONNES and IRVING In reply to the latter
Mr. said that no court 10 the world would
put such construction on the law as to autho.
rue the donor TO take advantage of his own &C,