Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-01-09
A c A r D.
E3ifoys nj fbs Tome

CARD.
To Tie Editors OF tie Itncs:
Messfs. Eiitors-ln the account given in The
papers OF yesterday morning of the decision Of the
Special Court Of Appeals in the case OF Smith aa1
Tucker vs.. Martins Administrators, We nave dis
covered some errors, doubtless uainicnIional
which are calculated 10 mislead the public mind
in reference 10 il. Il is a matter If the deepest
interest 10 US, that no injurious inteTenccs should
be draw n from that decision, in rcspecto the con-
duct OF the late Henry ST. G.. Tucker, in The trans
action impeached 10 that suit, beyond what may
justly follow from it.
The statement contained in your paper as 10
the general effect Of The Decree in respect 10 The
pecuniaTy interest Of Mr.. fuckers estate and in
opening the doors 10 more extended litigation, Is
Substantially correct We have never fell thai
mis- estate was The main neres, involved in the
controversy II we had, We would have readily
acquiesced IN The decree which has been pronoun-
ced, as il can only affect mis- amount comparative
ly insignificant. But The impeachment Of the
contract, in The procurement Of which ne took
no part but in The profits Of which i is al
legged he participated, dcvolves upon those who
are Interested more deeply in deieniins his Tepn'
latou, &c do all in their power 10 remove every
shadow Of suspicion which may be thrown over
the old AMI rrsol,en transaction.
Judges Allen, Fry and TaliaerIo constituted
The majority who pronounced the judgment Of
the court. from which Judge Johnson AMI Pfesi-
den. Cab.ll dissen9d The grounds upon which
the court annul!ei The contract Of 1916 were not
stated; whether Of actual or merely constructive
irand ne are lett in ignorance. Judge Johnson,
while he would have concured win the maIon
" in setting aside The contract helc, that the
saleness Of The transaction, the death OF the con-
~.
,sipn and Inc lalics Of the plaintiffs, closed the
door o, a court oil equity TO tier relief and I'M
posed upon he conrt he duty ot discussing the
bill
JUDGE Cabcll dissentsd wholly from the opia.
n OF In. court, upon the following grounds
He sald:
Il am OF opinion that the plaintiff, in the court
below have mol exhibited satisfactory proof oil
any fraud either in the procurement or IN The
execution ul h. contract OF July, 1916, by which
John Mackay, j. his own name. but really Tor the
b.nef. u himself, Edward j. Smith ami Henry
s.. George Tucker. became the purchaser OF me
interest OF Miss Susanna Martin and Of Gen. PM
In Martin in The estate OF Thomas Bryan Mar
lin, deceased.
II AN farther Of opinion, that, As the plan'Ilis
tailed Ia prove The CONTRACT irau.ucni, a. alore.
sail. i, is now too late, alter 50 efeal lapse oil
time, and alter the death OF all The inmedIa'e
paiies and Witnesses 10 The contract. 10 nod the
purchasers 10 The necessity OF proving Us actua!
.;ruess. Such course would b. cruel and I'M
iu,r; and is, accordingly, prohibited oy inc DC
nionant policy Of the law, which, IN snCh cases,
prcsun,es the innocence OF the parties and the laii-
ness OF The transaction. This doc'fiue Won'd DC
applicable to The purchasers IN M case, even
i, ,hpy held ,owar!s Miss Marin the relation OF
4 htply hot m
that relation 10 her Nevertheless, il il were pro-
vrt hat ,bcy. or any OF them had made 4 fraud.
uent use oi III know edge whch, as agents Of
Mrs. Mackay, they lad acquired OF The situation
al the estate, art had th,feby obtained an I'M
lsir bargain OF Ms, Marin, such ba gam onsht
undoubtedly 10 be sci aside not because the
purchasers were fiiuciaTies. bur because they mad
ac,cd traudulcn,ly. But | have already stated
thai in my opinion, there is no proof 81 any such
fraud. think, therefore, that the court oeio"
erred in vacaiing and annulling the contract
aforesaid"
Il will be perceived from the foregoing state
ment, that while The opinion q Judge Cabeli ie-
pels entirely every charge OF fraud upon the paFs
OF Mackay in The procurement OF ne contract,
We are only LEFT 10 conjecture The reasons Whlch
Influenced The Court in pronounclns lis Iaig-
menl, as i, has moi thought proper 10 express
them.
In making any publication in reference 10 this
subject while VIC do not intend TO say any thlns
in opposition TO the decree which has been rem
dered we ask that public opinion may be
SUSPENDED as 10 this ancient transaction, unm-
peached by the written judgment OF the MAORI
IL Of the Court upon the ground oil actual iraudi
and sustained against such an imputallon by the
distinguished President Of the Court. II IS ma
tural, after the lapse Of thirty years, the death
OF John Mackay, who really made the purchase,
and of Miss Martin, who contracted with nun
through solicitor, who is also dead, and oil all
those who we're present and knew oil the CIR
cumstances attending the negotiation, that, iactS
will transpire and proofs will be discovered con-
tpualIy, which will give an entirely different
aspect 10 the case IL has been said truly mat
This decree is the beginning OF litigation. In
the litigation which lies before us we believe
that facts will he developers: facts, already dts
copsr.d since tie decision Of Mc case in The Court
beow, and hereafter 10 be elected BY careful ex-
animation, which will show how incorrectis hu.
man judgment, (even when united 10 Judiciai
expericncel in fathoming the real truth oil so old
a transaction one obscured by the lapse oil
nearly thirty years before this suit was brought
and concerning The negotiation of conlTac', in
another country, between parties long since
dead and of whose motives no written mem"ri-
al EXISTS, no living witness can testify, ana not
even vague tradition Survives at The present
day. > II. IuShEn,