Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-08-03
Mr. TURNER also opposed the amendment

Mr. TURNER also opposed the ameHol'e'''
and asked The ayes and noes.
Mr. SCOTT objected TO the principie ., ..'
amendment the Hial By jury was sl.a. pu rd
lie benefit, 10 which every one is lI'tieS'eu' 'AN
The burden should tall on The public treasury. ,.
Mr. ElIETT hoped the House Wouiu 'o's
dow n the amendment. Al,
The Hruse-aye: 43, noes 4l-agreed 10 MI
TOMLIN'S amendment.
Mr. PERROW'S substitute was reJscteo-aye'
p, noes 81. .., .ves
Mr scoTT's substitute was rejecied-ayes
% noes So. L. Til
MIR FAULKNER moved 10 amend the Hn IN
section of chaprr III, so as 10 require nouse ~
a sui, against corporations, 10 an agent ar an
order ii publication, according 10 The lin SKI
lion. o.. soc.
On motion Of Mr. FAULKNER, the Din Sec
lion, providing for notices 10 agents, dt'Ves' Isn
in suils against common Carriers was 80, az
amended, so as 10 require order oil puoiica''on'
MIR HlETr moved 10 reconsider Inc woe ia
jecing Mr. Scouts substitute Tor The Jury o'iI' nsS
MIR RlVES called the previous question: VIII"
was ordered.
fMr HlETT said that, il the vote was recon
sidered, another member would move 10 recohs',
der the woe adopting Mr. TomlL's amenamen VI
Mr. BOISSEAU called the ayes ana noes 90 ",'
The reconsideration, which was carfieo-dyes ~
noes AZ.
IMr CLAIBORNE voted against The moI. 4, q
because he was in favor OF MT loM LIZ
Amendment, and could not sustain inc suos'''o'e
with that amendment stricken oul.I ,,
Mr. WORTHlNGTON then moved 10 leco ",
slider The voie, adopting The amenu'hsn.s - .nes
TOMLIN; and Mr. CONWAY asked Inc ayes
and noes. ,.
The House agreed 10 reconsider ayes AZ, noes
Al. o,.,,N,,
The question then being on Mr. ToMLIrS
amendment, Mr. RlVES asked the ayes anu hoe''
bur MI T., by leave, Withdrew il.
MIR RIVES called lhe ayes and noes On WI
SCOTT'S substitute, which was again oeio'e
the House. ,;..
Mr. SCOTT explained The substitute, Which
was first suggested by Judge Tucker IN 'ne co'n,
menlaIes Of that learned Judge. 10 hiiD ~a'
due the credit Of pointing out the proposed ll'one
OF selecting Jurors by lot, as remedy lot .ue
great evils win which the Inry system wa'
iraught.
Mr. THOMPSON oil J, had been in favor Of
[aying the Jurors b. county levy.bul ne snou'u
now sustain the substitute OF MIR. SCOTT.
Mr. HARRISON OF l., preferred The provision
tect BY The action OF The House. he couiu no'
SUPPORT Mr. SCOTT'S substitute, because II IS
impedeci; among other things in providing lot
Juror, Tor Cmcuit Courts only. Mr. Il. wcuia en-
large The PANEL OF 100 10 every man IN Inc com,
mun,y who is bound 10 renler this important
Jury duly. Good Jurors can better be secured "
This principle, than by paying Them. Mf q.
commended hat most parties you'd prefer July
OF twelve 10 Try their suits, and that only nihe
Of the q under MIR SCOTS substitute. wou'd
be lett, 10 form second jury, anc htnce 'hc
sams yilwll exist, viz The leaving II 10 Inc oepu>
~ sheriits TO select jury from Inc oy-slahucISs'
MIR SCOTT replied 10 the objections Of MI r.
II was unnecessary 10 make any provision ioi
Jurors 10 the county courts, as by The common
law, full power is given 10 provide Jurors ioi
them as al present. The gentleman strangely
objects 10 The substitute, when The same evii j.
certain 10 arise ont OF tie provision III me Coue
Mr. S. thought that every man, who mao an
honest case would prefer jury OF seven, aho
that even if more Jurors than the original "a DC
,gan,ed proyision is made Tor selecting Jurors
nv lol from the jury.boX or the body oil The conn-
~ MIR S. spoke Tor some time, in reply 10 Mr.
| HARRISON, and argued that his provision
aulnofizing The county courts 10 select Jurors
from The body OF The county, was emihen!iy su'
nerior to the abomnaton Incorporated IN Inc
| Code of allowing deputy sherIfs 10 pack Jurors
Mr. RIVES regarded both schemes as expert
menls sa ppng the foundations oil tne lflai oy jury
and he was opposed 10 both. But as lhe SEN
a,e had Twice rejected the substitute, We should
nresent 10 them something new, VIZ: The pro-
vision in the Code; and they will have an OPP
| norluDily OF adjusting some system Which may
h, more satisfactory. he asked The previous
question, which was sustained
Mr.. STOYALLsugsesiei an amendmen 70
! The bill in The Code, viz: 10 strike ou1 Inc ION
section, authorizing The County Courts 10 MAKE
a levy 10 pay Jurors. Il was ruled ou' oil oiuer
The substitute OF MIR. SCOTT was, lnen,
again reiec'ed-ayes Al, noes a. as ionoWs:
AYEs-Nrs.rs Layne Of Allegheny, PaulkEer' Dc
Cams, Byrnr oi Barton, Lewis and G'irr, irvine o.
rampbe Barbour, Ir'ing Of c. Thomas, SCOT, Ssl,
man B,iIy. Carroll, Allen, Hied, nar!ac"l' bassei
I,ur,srr Nndhnston. Thomson o. JEFFERSON, ioni
IN Arn.,; Mcdonald, Clendrnin, Tan2-y, Prrrnw,
v.,hy ll5nlh, PEts, Ruswrll Turner, SYM, Townes
Iackey Fairfax Gof, Strother, Mayo, Mlitz. harper
Aston fngale Thorn son oi Shiyth, butue', "o"u'o"
Collins and Buyd-15. ,v
TnEsmMessrs Hopkins, tSpeaser,) Finney, Wat
am Bois,rau billiard, Chealh:n Brown, Milche Bur
we'll Harrison Of Brunswick, to,hes, Monc1e o. II n
In. rardwell Jones, Clarke Howard OF Floyd, Clal
norma. Edwards of Franklin, Sydnor, tlonlon niacln
Of G,cnssville, soga Major, Mullins, Weho White
Harrison Of iojldoun, Harris, Edmondson; Newman
Shsuard Whittle Bernr of Monroe, Butt, Bayse, ran
nil Grasty. Herbert, Riyss. Eirrison Of Prince VIII
| Lam Dorman Pullman. Griffin, Conway, Mnncuie VI
| stafford, argfaye, Nicholson aud Masse}-ie.
a,r. PITTS saii he should nov lec bound tc
woe aeains: the engrossment oil lhs part Of lh'
| Code. il The very detective Jury system IN lhe
| Code be adopted. Bad Is The cid system was, he
regarded / as greatly better than the present 90
| ;.c,iurable provision in the Code, de, there
,..re r.n.cd 10 t,kc Out The chapcr in The Cuct
and substitute The ptcr on lures in the Reyi
sed Code OF 1919, which he sent 10 the chair -
II, asked The ayes and noes on This substitute
/ ,pas agreed fO-ayeS 40 noes az.
Mr.. EDWARDS fose 10 ask he prcviou:
! question IN The cpsrossment OF The hill-but tht
chair 6rsl recognized Mr. PERROW, who sug
| ees,ed additions which should be made 10 tx
chapter on iures.
lion Of chapter l67 on motions and noiIces, By
aiding clause, that the notice shall be Teturne'
IN The clerks tflice within 80 days after bcIns
s.rved. and shall be entered on The docket OF IN,
court By The clerk as prescribed in The Isl sec;lor
Sustained By Mcssrs STROTHER and lRV-
ING, who argued that tho cost would be only
thirty cents, aud that the clause was necessary
TO prevent fraud
Mr. MoNCURE of s opposed the motion as
unnecessary. The notice was intended entirely
| for the benefit OF the defendant, and he should
not be charged with further costs.
| Mr. STROTHER was in favor oil throwing a
| farther guard around the defendant, BY prevent
ing the creditor from using this novel remedy
for the surprise and injury of the defendant
The amendment was lost-25 10 81.
Mr. WATSON moved TO reconsider the vote
adopting the chapter of the Revised Codc OF
1919 on the Jury system. He had voted for IT.
under The belief that the Ho0se would prune
away lis incongruous portions, and put II IN
snch o shane as 10 make it worthy of place in
The new Code He, MIR w, preferred the old
system, bad as j, is, to the details of the pro,
yisiog in lhe Code-against one principle OF
which he protested, viz: that allowing the depu-
ty sheriff, TO selec, the jurors. Such provl-
sion he thought would lead 10 great corruption
MIR SCOTT said that the House had been te'
trayed into vote for the whole chapter in the
Reyisal of 1919, with all lis incongruous pro
visions in the Grand jury Law, &C. He, MIR
S, had voted for the proposition, rs containing
The prcscn, law on tho subject of petit jurors.
| ;dara