Democratic banner. (Bowling Green, Pike County, Mo.) 1845-1852, 1850-07-15
COMMUNICATIONS.
For the Banner.


observe communication over the signature of
"EssEx," in favor Of establishing Probate
Court, and in which member of the County
Cour, is charged with official misconduct. Wiz
regard to the merits of the Probate Court system,
it is not my purpose to say word. Suffice it
to say that The expedency Of adopting any new
plan, should be determined without regard TO the
present piques or imaginary grievances of any
individual. Every officer of our county. how
ever competent or faithful he may be to the trust
repossd in his hands, frequently subjects him
self 10 unmerited 'cencure and personal i'll feel
ing in honestly discharging his official duiies !;
and this is especially the case with those who are
acting in judicial capacity. The nature of their
Office is such as to require them to decide be.
tween conflicting interests and passions of par
ties, and it rarely happens that decision given
under such circumstances. however impartial or
judicous may be, fails to excite dissatisfaction
in the minds of the defeated party, and this fact
accounts in great degree for the frequent
changes that are made upon the County Court
bench. A Judge scarcely becomes familiar with
the duties Of his station, before The dissatisfied
and disappointed are loud and unsparing in their
cencure, and the most experienced and compe-
tent must yield 10 some new and less experienced
favorite. It fortunate, however, for the MAIN
tainance Of truth, that the author of the commit
nication referred to has exhibited degree Of per-
sonal hatred and vindictiveness of feeling, that
with mep Of discernment must destroy all conf
dence in the correctness Of his version of the ac-
zion of the county court upon a certain claim
presented TO them for allowance. But aside
from this consideration, The most cursory glance
Of the communication of Essex must satisfy ev-
cry candid mind that it is calculated to create a
false impression upon the public mind, in order
70 defeat their re election. Let us examine IT,
lie says:
Twill gire an instance only for the present.
An Administrator to save the expense agrees TO
meet claimant at court without notice served,
they meet the administrator is present and tac-
lily valves notice. the claimant and his witness
are sworn and testify, and the demand is clearly
proven and Just then Judge imagihes the ad-
ministrator has not waived nntice, and in effect
invites him not to do it, and in the next place
invites him TO plead limitation!
In the first place. it is evident from the familiar
ity Of Essx with the transaction, and especially
with the private agreemen! between the claim
ant and administrator that he is The claimant him
self fact that accounts for his deep interest in
the public welfare, and renders him very COM
petent witness. But the great error in the Court
consists in the alledged fact that Judge imagin-
ed the administrator had not waived notice, and
in effect invited him not TO do it. Now, with
those conversant with The acquisitions Of the
law, and the uniform practice Of our courts, the
folly and injustice Of this construction will be
apparent. The law requires that written notice
shall be given the administrator ten days before
the first day Of the term which the demand will
be presented for allowance, unless he, the admin.
istrator, chooses TO waive notice on the demand
orin open court. The court not being familiar with
the private agreement between the administrator
and Essex, and finding no evidence Of notice
having been served or waived upon the accoun
itself, naturally, from their known duty, asked
the administrator whether he waived notice
Ard this question is construed into an intention
to dol It. II, under such circumstances, Che ad
ministrator should disregard the private agree
ment and require further nOtics. who should b,
censuredP The assertion thst a Judge next in
vited him TO plead iimtaiion,is equally as ground
less. Why does he not give the exact langusg
used by the member Of the court referred to, an
leave the task to others of determining wheth
sr It amounted to an invitation to plead limita
ton?
With regard to the justice Of the claim, it migt
be observed that it was created some or 1
years ago in favor Of Mr.. B /, who died 500
after its life. His estate was settled up by hi
administrator. who, presume, had no know
edge Of any such claim, or at least was under th
impression that the claim, or amount, had bee
settled during BIS life. The debtor died sbo,
two years ago, but sEsssx' in the meantime hs
acquired title to it by marriage with the vic
ow Of Mr.. B, as he thouetf, and presented it f
allowance against the dead man's estate. WI