Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-31


Com missorers; il accounts weie s.Iled by then
10 nine cases out ct ten there would be an AZ
peal from The settlement, and then the Crcu
Coar would have 81 last TO perform, the DAT,
which the Revisofs wished should al first be coL
BY them. and the expense o! two settlements il
cIrrei, instead Of one. He trusted Inc Hous
Wu;'ti not be Iesislalng Tor County Court Com
m s,i0neIs, but Tor The Sae-tor The people {
the S'a'e- Tor The widow and orphans Of the Sla's
whose rist;s and properly we're 50 nearly inrov
cd in The proper settlement OF filnciaiy &c
coun.s.
Mr.. PERROW believed that the CoGlt
Courts hac il more in lhctr rover to appoin
competent commissioners lbau he Circuit C0Ir
because OF their knowledge c. the people. FL
urged Inc retention o! The amendment.
Mr.. WILLS thought, if The proposition OF h
member from Nelson was ensrafted on The law
as reported by The Revisors, that il would nav,
the effect OF making thai, which he believed I,
be wise and Judicicus, Utterly nusalo!y. 1t wonl'
bring about perpetual appeals from tie SET
Elements of County Courts lo The higher tribunal
Besites this. monthly term Of Coca;y Cour
was moi sufficient 10 cradle the commissioner I,
setlle, 50 as 10 lay before II long and lilIga et
account, 10 be passed upon; and The resnl. wGnlt
be, that lhcse cases would I,ngar before the Coun
"
TERED 10 tn Superior Courts. Was il mol Known
tina; in many instances these fiduciary account:
we're so complex end extended, that The CIrcni
Courts took them Tor examination during iheil
vacali1n2 What would the County Courts 60 ir
such cascs7 II The law was lett rs reported, i
would be better Tor he distributes and the fGu
ciary also. He hoped tic House would disagree
10 The amendment OF The commune Of The
Whole.
Mr. FERGUSON called the ayes and noes
upon The amendment. Ordered.
Mr.. HARRISON OF p w. said he should go
for the amendment Of The Committee OF The Wno!e
if II allowed both the County aud Circuit Courts
concurren, jurisdiction.
Mr.. SHEFFEY said, if The member from P
W. imagined that fduciaIy could select The
commissioner OF one Courl or The other, as he
m ieht deem fi,, he was mistaken
Mr.. BuRWELL merely wished 10 adj his
humble testimony 10 The entire co npe,ency oil he
County Courts 10 make The appointment q! pro.
per commissioner.
Mr.. WHlTTLE urged the retention Of The
chapter as il came from the Hevisors, believing il
to be one OF The best and wisest in The whole
Code. There had been more ruin, more bank
ruplcy produced in the State, by the improper
settlement OF fiiuciary accounts by county Court
together. This plan had been tried 10 other
States and lonnd eminenlly successful; and he
did trust Ina, it would be the pleasure OF The
House 10 retain il.
Mr.. SCOTT said that be had rather have the
present system, with regard 10 The ftuciaty &C.
couns, than what il would be, il amt Dted by The
proposition 10 cast upon The County Courts, al
most exclusively, this difficult aid complex 9ues.
lion OF adjudication. It ii were done, we should
have appeal upon appeal 10 he Circuit Courts,
and he could rot see for his life The reason why
he jurisdiction should BIZ divided between the
Cours. IL maIred the symmetry OF the whole
plan, ard failed 10 do what il was intended To &C.
compish, viz dispensing hereafter with long and
chancery suits.
The roll being called, the amendment was dis
agreed to-aye> 40, noes 80.
In eas@s Of infans. ma Titd women or insan.
uf-s9ns: Ju'ta.T time al o'oed Jr enTy or actin
Mr.. Lacy OH cd 10 The amendment OF the
Committee OF lhc Whole, licliung The time TO
hry, !nsfeat ol fly years.
Mr.. PRICE regarded the amendment as
proper and consequential ono. After party
rad Leen in the possession OF the property,
for thirty years, !aty ousa; rot 10
Amc1dmen, agreed 10.
When The House rea hod the amen4ment, al
lowing agents 10 transact business 10: thirty
laws before disclosing The name Of their priaci-
pal, compulsoriy, Mr.. TONNES moved that
Ihe com mitlee dis igree Carried.
Amendment Of committee, in actions for in
suI,ing words, so as TO enable "a defendant 10
prove, in Justification, before jury, the truth
fuIness OF his charges.
MIR. PRICE moved to strike out portion Of
the section, 20 a. TO accomplish the same pur-
pose as tho CON nittee amend nent.
MIR SCOTT sal the purpose oil the trainers
If the Law, 10 extending the action TO words o..
insult, was 10 give to the jury the power OF
examining the circumstances under which me
word, were applied and deciding whether 'hey
were Insulting or not, and assessing the Dana
ges; aud 10 prevent the use oil demurrer, De-
cause certain words might DE used, mat IN
their ordinary accspiation, were not lnsul''ns
He thought that il was best that the Whoie sec"
ton should be stricken out; he had seen no rea'
son why it should b. retained II was saic 10
have been passed 10 support the anii'oueiiins
law, but parsons willing to offend against TINS
law would hardly have any use for the provision
regulating suits Of SANDER.
Mr. FERGUSON saw no necessity for the
law at all: il was only calculated to give rise
10 little petty suits for SANDER, producing grea
e.oensc and no good. But if the Hou 70
tanned Tho section, be was for The anne 'amcn'
which had been adop'ed on his Suggestion II
the committee OF The WI hole
MI. SHEFFEY Thought that the Legislature
meant ia passing the law, il they meant ahy'n'ns
mat the action should lie Tor The ulerins OF ~
smiling words. which, in their ordinary accepa
ton, provoke men 10 COMM. Ureachos VI ..'
o.ace. The provision was as old as inc da''
duelline scl OF IS09-I0; and formed paH OF lna
ART. The law was SO framed that no plea, eAeeP
lion mr. dedenurfer, should be allowed W lux
conr, on as 10 exclude the Jury from passing up
oN - c.e,,iun. whr her the defendant was guilty
~ mn sui.,y OF uuerirg he insulting words. TIT
syowrd purpose OF the law was TO prevent orcach
g Of The peace which nigh, result! IRON tn
u,terine OF insulting lrnlhs as well as talsehoocs
Nh. FERGUSON thought that the defendan
should be allowed 10 prove the truth OF what d.
has said and in that way hundred lille pei!
Islander suits would b, preIenlec; Otherwise Tx
plaintiff would put off Trial from day TO DAY,
large number OF witnesses summoned, ana IN
defendant, haIrassed, with no hope or wish 10
damages Notwithstanding the lrulhiulness Oh 10
charges.
Mr.. PRICE was for allowing the whole cas-
10 20 before the jurs; and not Stopping The moui
o! lie defendant. The Jury oouio thcn pass in'e
Lightly thereon. He regretted the necessity 10
any such Law at all, but he YET believed that pa
done much good. Il resled with The high sens
OF the community and with The members OF "a
bar 10 discourage and put down these actions
petty Islander Cases. e ),
Mr., SCOTT explained The decision of 10
Court OF Appeals in cases OF slander unoef 10
Mr.. MAYO did not regard that decision as &C
compIishins, in any degree, The ohJect when 10
legislature mad 10 view in passing me law an
10 make The law devoid OF all ambiguity he PFC
nossd, at a proper time, TO offer an ameGdnsI
70 maize all words aclionable under The c'a'u'
tbat are now so under Tho Common Law
Mr. sHEFFEY said ifhe understood arisht u
decision In the case Of Brooks and GALLOWAY
which had been referred to, it settled ,ne oeS
,riue, that in actions of SANDER for words uode
The statute, the plea of justification could mol
relied on: and for the reason DO had sifeao
urged, tha, The policy Of the law was 10 resiral
tho tongue from ullerng insulting words, nov
ever tsuc, which might lead 10 breach OF 10
peoco Tho plea Of justification was still %
missiole in suits for words ac,ionable at comme
inv. AT the common law, words were actor
able importing charge against the plaintiff
an offence, for the commission oil which, II co