Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-05-15

Judge of this Circuit then composed of the counties
Augusta, Rockbridge, Amherst, Nelson, and Abe
marie BY that act he required to take the oatbs
of Office, before entering upon Its duties. was then
vested with authority to appoint the Clerks of his
several Courts of the Circuit and Commissioners in
Chancery and with chancery jurisdiction through
out his Circuit, giving him power to appoint Recev-
ers general and special, give relief and protect the
interest OF suitors The Clerks of the several Courts
OF the different Circuits after their appointment and
0eIore entering upon the duties of their respective Of
noes we're required, under penalty. to stake an
oath OF ohce well and truly to exercise the Office of
Clerk OF that Court, and enter into bond with one or
more sucien securities to be approved by the Court
10 the penalty OF ten thousand dollars conditioned for
the faithful performance of the duties of has ocs-
What was his Office? Certainly that of CerE of the
Court, and that only, under that appointment. oath
and bond and his securities in that bond coud never
be held responsible for his delinquences in the ner
formance OF any other Duties of the duties of any
other Office. fssezf ,s7l ..s.EsssftT a n =
By virtue of that act Judge Thompson, on the goth
May, 1881, appointed Nicholas G. Kinney of the town
of Staunton, the Clerk Of the Circuit Superior Court
OF Law and Chancery for Augusta county and on the
same day, Kinney with his securities entered into
bond to the Governor of Virginia for the sum of ten
thousand dollars conditioned that if the said Kinney
should. In all things, truly and faithfully perform the
duties of the office of Clerk of the said Court then said
bond to be void. Would such bond bind the secu-
rites of Nicholas c. Kinney for his performance of
any other duty than that OF the Clerk of that Courtg
Would it have been any part of the duty of special
or general Receiver of that Court to have filled the Of
Ice VI OierA anu performed It's QutleS! certainly
not Then it was part of the duty of the Clerk to
act as the Receiver. But Judge Thompson appointed
said Nicholas C. Kinney general Receiver of the
Court and, as reported, without any order of the
Court, eydencing that appointment. requiring any
bond of him any indemnity for his faithful perform
ance OF the duties of that Office. Was there ever o
special Receiver appointed by Circuit Court of Vir
gna, to take charge of the funds of case however
small the amount of the fund, without being required
by the Court before taking charge of that fund, to
give bond with ample security to indemnify the par
ties concerned for the faithful performance of his
tzustg Yet, this general Receiver thus appointed,
and without being required to give any indemnity,
was not only permitted, but directed by Judge Thomp
to take charge of the whole fund of the Circuit Su
perior Court OF Law and Chancery for Augusta coun
ty for about. or upwards of, twenty one years. a.
mounting as supposed by many, to hundreds of thou
sands OF dollars, without being required to make re-
port to the court Of the amount received In each case
when, how invested, and what security taken to se-
cure the payment. when demanded, or to keep a Re-
book showing those facts free to the inspec-
ton OF all the parties interested during that whole
period 1t is thought and feared by many as report
ed that thousands of dollars will be lost to the par
ties In the subject, by this wonderful and most
countable indulgence of Judge Thompson to Nicholas
C. Kinney. But If ything were wanting to strike
the mind with utter establishment at Judge Thomp-
sons course p relation to his receiver Nicholas c.
Kinney it may be found by referring to the Act of
the Legislature, passed Sd June 1852 That act ex-
pressy relates to the Receivers of the Court requires
them severally to execute bond annually, with such
security as shall be approved by the Court and for
such annual report of his receipts and disburse-
ments, the dates of each, and in what cases. for the
inspection of the Court with other requistons yet the
said Kinney, never executed but one bond and that
than six months after the passage that act and
then only for 100000, without making any report
cordng to the requirements Of the act Can this
duct OF Judge Thompson be explained consistent
with the duties of his office? Let the people of this
circuit answer the question. JuNIUs.
May Is, 1S60.-1t.