Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-04-10

in the capacity of treasurer; that is, he receive
all monies paid into court by contending partie
and holds such until ordered by the court to pa,
it out. Shortly after Judge T. was promoted t.
the Bench, he appointed Nicholas @. Kinne,
Receiver. 1t would be supposed that one
/ through whose hands passed so much money
would be required to give security for such mon
/ les. But such, understand, was not the case
Mr.. Kinney remained in office without giving
security until 1862, when an act, dated April Of
that year, was passed by the Legislature, upor
motion of one of our own representatives, ma
king it obligatory upon the Judge to require
bond from the Receiver. Under the recent sec
tion of this Act, which is as follows: "He 0he
Receiver) shall annually give before the Cour,
a bond, to be approved by it, in such penalty a.
the Court may direct, sufficient at least to cover
the probable amount that may come into his
hands in any one gear" Mr.. Kinneysgave bond
and security on the Both of August, 1852, which
bond could only be valid for one gear from that
date, for it shall be given annually saith the
Act. Nevertheless, | am informed, (and shall
appeal TO the Record in this as in other asser-
tions | may make, if they are disputed, } that no
other bond was required by the court, though
| Mr.. Kinney remained in Office five or six years
Will Judge rs advocates tell the people why this
is !? Why be failed to comply with this plain
provision of the law9 Why he neglected to
take hond and security annually from the Re
ceiver for the faithful discharge of his duties p
And why, in the face OF this Act, he kept Mr..
K. in Office five or six years in the annual receipt
of large sums of money without any security for
it2 Will they tell u.s. if it is consistent with the
fidelity of judge, in violation Of the law whose
guardian and expounder he is, TO allow an off
Ger Of the court, through whose hands so many
Thousand dollars of the peoples money passes, to
handle this money without being under obliga-
tons to his employersa Will they, also, tell US
who is at present receiver2 When these ques-
tions have been answered or explained away,
Others OF graver Importance may be discussed be-
fore the people-other richer disclosures may
be made. a-s
| shall next proceed to discuss the industry of
Judge L. !; and first as to the elaborate first ar
ticle of "R. l.. j., who makes the assertion that
Mr.. Fultz has arralgned Judge 7. "for want Of
Industry and efficiency aud then proceeds to
prove from document No. GIL that he afragn
ment is untrue He is very careful to tell US
what the Judge has done. but negects, accord
ing to 'sRockbridge's" sensible article, which is
entirely unanswered, to tell us what he has lett
ssnd0ne. He tells Us that Judge I. decided
1872 cases, but forgot (for II am bound to pre-
sumo" he forgot to tell US that he lett undeci-
ded 1892. He tells US chat she stands at the
head of the list" in the number of chancery Ca
ses decided ; but does not tell US that there are
upon his dockets 1902 cases-more than in any
other court of chancery in the State In fine he
does not tell US that while he islands at the head
of the lst'' in his decisions, he also islands at
the head in his vndecisions. He then calculates
"the average amount of business done in the 81
Circuits" as compared with the 18th Circuit
but is not sufficiently friend of the people to
point out to them the great difference in the size
of the several Circuits and in the amount and
quality OF the business done in each. He does
dot tell them that in judging of the labors of a
Judge, they must consider not so much the num-
Der of days be has worked nor so much the a.
mount of labor he has performed as the quality
of that labor. He does not tell them, (no, no. it
would not subserve his purpose) that all cases in
court are not alike; that some are DEGREES that
takeSscarcely more than breath that others
are office judgmeasts which never come into the
| court room while others do, indeed, take days
| to try them. As to the inequality in the Cir
cult let Us take few examples to show that the
reasoning of s'R. L. j" must be fallacious since
| 1t has such an uncertain foundation. We find
| that while one judge sat 200 days another sal
only 81 and while decided 1882 cases an
other decided only 217 Judge Colman sat ia
| days and decided 900 cases, Judge Thompson sal
1877 days aud decided only 1885, Judge T. deci-
ded more cases than any other Judge in the
State, says R. L. j." and yet at least eight other
Judges were longer upon the bench of their Cir
cults How is r. L. j." to reason truthfully
upon such uncertain facts? Perhaps he can re-
concile them, but cannot
He further tells US that Judge Thompson "was
longer in Court than any other man in Virgin
Ia" l seek for an explanation upon that point
| cannot understand how he calculates that. He
also informs US that he was in court nearly the
year round. We learn from this document, up
on which he relies so strongly, that he was in
Circuit Court 137 days, in District Court days
and in Court of Appeals &c days; making in all
207 days. Where did he spend the rest of his
timeg Perhaps "R. L. j." will explain too why
his friend Thompson showed so much partiality
to Augusta, by holding special term in her
Court, when he did it no other county. Per-
haps, he will explain why the Judge decided
more actions at law in Amherst and Nelson
than he did in Augusta, and sat in the former
counties scarce one-third the time that be did
| in the latter
| But, in my opinion, it is impossible to form a
| correct estimate of the labor performed by any
one Judge from this document. We must look
at the manner in which they perform that busi-
ness. We must judge from our own experience
| but this will leave for another article. | am
still most humbly, but most independently.
A CoUNTRYMAN.