Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-05-22
sTAUNTON, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, MAY o. 1860


come into his hands in any ono year." This
language evidently refers to the future and moi
to the past, and therefore, must have prospec-
tive, and not retrospective operation. ltsure-
ly cannot operate backward and forward at the
same time. But if 90, to what time before, and
how long afters The bond was required to be
given annually, in penalty sufficient at te0sI
to cover the probable receipts of one year."
Then, if the bond operates both ways, it will
extend from six months before its date to six
months afterwards. But, before the passage ol
that act, receivers could only be appointed by
the Chancery power of the Court; while after
wards they had to be appointed under the act,
and were statutory officers of the Court, because,
by virtue OF that act, they were created. Hence
Nicholas @. Kinney, having been appointed un-
Ger that act, was a statutory Office of the Court.
Thus, his bond, having been required by that
act, was statutory bond and gave remedy a.
gainst him and his securities for any loss, occa-
stoned by his mismanagement or misapplication
of the funds received by him as such officer, and
that only for one year from the date of the bond
for the act says bond shall be executed annu-
ally, and in q penalty to cover the probable a.
mount of receipts for a: least one year; but it
does not say for more than one year. And the
bond executed by Nicholas G. Kinney, on the
| 3Oth November, 1862, is conditioned according
to the regulations Of that act because there is
no other law having any power over 1t. Then
! what becomes of the immense sums of money
paid to Nicholas @. Kinney, as Receiver ap-
pointed under the Chancery power of the Court,
tor upwards of twenty-one years, before the ex-
ecution of the bond Of 3Oth November, 1892
And what is to be said of the large sums which
came to his hands, as receiver, after the expi-
ration of the year, from the date of the bond of
November Both, 1862, to the November term of
the Court, 1852 Are these large sums to be
lost 2 Judge Thompson, as has been before
shown, took no Receivers bond from said Kin
ney, from the time of his first appointing him
Receiver, to the S0th November, 1852, and never
required him to make report Of the amount
received, in what cases received, the date of the
receipts, and what amount paid over to the par
ties interested. For this there is no remedy
And notwithstanding the aot Sd June, 1852, re-
quiring Judge Thompson to demand of the Re-
ceiver bond annually, in penalty sufficient to
cover the probable receipts OF at least one year,
be took no bond of him for four years, while re-
tanning him Receiver, under that act. Is there
any indemnity against loss for this periods
have heard of none.
The said Kinney il now deceased, and his es-
tate reported wholly insolvent. But that there
will be loss, is admitted by all the least ac-
quainted with the subject. Then, what will be
the whole loss by the receivership of Kinney,
and the failure Of Judge Thompson to make him
give bonds to secure the funds, from time to
time, paid to him as receiver to the parties in
terested? | am informed that, as the said Kin
ney made no report giving that information, no
one can tell; but as believed, 1t will be large
Who will sustain the lossa This must be borne
by all the suitors interested in the fund, and in
proportion to the amount or value of their seve-
oral ia oh
muoh-too mnch-of this loss will have to be
borne by widows and orphans. The suitors, af
ter many years of litigation, and heavy expense
to Lawyers, Clerks, and Commissioners, to have
| their rights investigated and decided, have been
sometimes, from necessity compelled to leave
the county, and, not unfrequently, the State be-
tore accomplishing thai object. The subjects OF
| litigation were frequently land or other proper
ty subject to depreciation, by being rented out,
or for the want of proper attention, and were
regarded best to be sold, and the proceeds paid
into Court, to await the decision of the cause,
this being doue by an order Of Court in the case.
Such cases, I am informed, mostly compose the
celebrated sleeping Docket" The Clerk usu-
ally places such cases on that docket for "conue-
nience," and it is rare indeed, that he will find
| it Convenient to remove them: because were he
to be guilty of such folly, he might, if he were
receiver as well as Clerk, like MIR. Kinney soon
have the anconuenisnce of having to pass O.
yer the money. In this way the receiver soon
learns to regard the money as bis own, aud so
uses it; and, in this way Nicholas @. Kinney, as
it is thought, learned to regard the receivers
fund his own. and as such, used and squGndered
1t on has prodigal sons, at the expense of the
| suitors-too frequently the helpless widow and
orphan.
But, if it were possible to recover the whole
fnp ~ H.,
process OF law, still a great evil would remain !;
because the parties, after having been subjected
to the trouble, labor, and expense of one suit to
have their rights settled, would be subjected to
the trouble, labor, and expense of another, to re-
cover their rights from the receiver. When, ac-
cording to this system, would be the end of their
litigation2 But, it may be asked how it has
happened, that Judge Thompson granted Nicho-
las @. Kinney such immunity from obligations,
while permitting him to hold such an important
office, and thus, to receive such large sums of
money In answer to this, it must be admitted
and that Judge Thompson is an honest and un-
suspecting man that, as reported, before he was
| elected Judge, and during his whole Judicial
life he was not only warm friend of Nicholas
Q. Kinney, but had the highest and most un-
| bounded confidence in his honesty, his business
capacity and integrity. In his simple honesty,
=
binding him to perform all the duties of receiv-
er, with fidelity, wholly useless act. But this
! will hardly excuse him to the parties suffering
from that neglect, or be regarded valid plea
by the people of this Circuit. slsa3 haalls7 tsGtn
| Having now finished what / most relunctantly
commenced, Twill briefly sum up what have
honestly, but most impertectly, discussed and es-
tablisied by argument. | have shown that an
independent system af the Judiciary was iYre-
sponssds; that the old system was Independent,
| the evils of that system, and the advantage OF
the present; that the evils Of that system would
occasionally appear in the present; that Judge
should have dignity of character and department
| what he would be without these characteristcs
and his other qualifications. Ithen examined the
| present candidates for the Judicial office by the
| law of true dignity of character aud department.
as explained, anu the evidence furnished by
themselves. ALI which believe have been ac
knowledged. / admit the examination to have
been rigid, but fair because have no unkind
feelings to crafty, but entertain such kindness
as slight acquaintance would justly to bott
the parties. Whichever of the candidates may
be elected, it is believed, that the communioa-
| tiOns | have written will prove beneficial; 81
the future Judge of this Circuit will know tha
there are people within it competent to judge 0
his qualifications and defects; and that ther,
might be a 'Junius'' to point them cut to th,
public. That public will judge ofthis competen
cy on this occasion, and approve or condemn
him according to their impartial Judgment.
JUNIUs
The PANAoEA-The great cure-all, the ca
l holt e<~, ~ - \