The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1867-02-19
THE NEW STAY Law EXPLAINED

will be found both interesting and useful:
The first section enacts .'that all warrants is
sued by Justice of the Peace in civil cases shall
not be returnable within IL months after the
ecution of the same before some Justice of the
Peace for the county, worse specimen of
English composition would be hard to find. THAT
all warrants issued. &C., shall not be returnable
within twelve MONTHS would imply that some or
perhaps nearly all of such warrants may be re-
turnable within twelve months. and to prohibit
such warrants from being returnabie before some
Justice of the Peace implies that there may be
other Justices before whom such warrants may be
returned. The true intent and meaning of the
section evidently is, that civil warrant shall
be returnable within twelve months from the time
it is served; and this provision, by a subsequent
section, is confined to contracts prior to May, '65
The second section restores to Justices of the
Peace the jurisdiction which they had in 1860
but provides that suits commenced under the
Convention Stay Law for sums within the former
jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace. may be pros
ecuted to judgment in the courts where they are
now pending.
Section third, after repeating in double the
number of words the identical provisions of Sec
ton first. goes on to provide that when the war
rant is returned for trial at the end of twelve
months from service, if the defendant shall pay
one tenth of principal and interest, and all cost
accrued up to that time, he shall have twelve
months to plead; then being again notified of the
time and place of trial, by paying one fifth of the
residue, he is allowed twelve months longer to
plead; al the end of which time, by paying one
| hair, he gets twelve months more; at the end of
which time judgme ut is rendered for the remain
der. 1t is further provided "that executions al
ready rendered judgments of Justices of the
Peace shall be stayed for twelve months from the
ratification of this act.' 1t will be observed that
there is class of not provided for in this
or any other section of the act, namely: cases
where Justices jud gments have been given and
execution not already rendered. 1t was proba bly,
not the intention of the Legislature to exclude
these cases, but it will require very tatatud,nous
construction TO embrace them.
Section four is another detachable specimen of
legal and grammatical tonfoolery and nonsense.
Its author certainly never drew very deep inspi-
ratons from old father Murray, much less from
Coke or Blackstone. THAT all debts con-
traced since the first of May, 1865, and all war
rants issuing for the shall be returned and
tried according to the provisions of the Revised
Code. chapter 62, and the remedy in all such
cases shall be the same as in 1861" Now what
is it that is to be returned and tried - Can any
one tell !! 1t is plain enough that "all warrants
issuing for the same" contracts since May. 65)
are to be thus returned and tried" But there
| is something ese ION all debts contracted since
May, '65, and all warrants, &C., shall be returned
and tried - Clear mud and twice as satt. But
really it is hard to understand what is meant
| The only way to relieve the grammatical blunder
is to strike out the proposition before all debts
and we then have ''al debts contracted since May.
'65, and all warrants issuing for the same. &c.
| shall be returned and tried, &c. which is still
uniptelligible as there is no such thing known in
legal proceedings returning and trying debts.
| We return process and try actions of debt. But
! let rs suppose that this untechnical
| phraseology on the part of the craftsman. and
that it was really meant to be enacted that ''al
process writs issuing on debts contracted since
| May, '65. and all warrants issuing for the same,'
&C.. and in great bewilderment as
ever; for they dLI aOrits and warrants to be
''returned and tried according to chapter 81, Re-
viSed Code which relates only to Justices Of the
| Peace. Did the Legislature intend to take from
! the Courts jurisdiction IF ''all debts contracted
since May. '65." and confne the trial Of such
cases exclusively to Justices of the Peace! Surely
not. Simply that the provisions of this act shall
not apply to debts contracted since May. go, and
that the remedy in such cases shall be in 1860.
Sections 5th and 9th provide substantially that
all wrts on debts prior to May, '65, shall be re
turned, or, if already issued. shall be continued
to Spring Term, 1868. of the Superior Court, and
the defendant by paying at that time tenth
gets twelve months to plead; then at the end of
| twelve months he pays one fifth. then e-half
and then judgment is rendered against him for
the remainder. If be fails to pay any instalment
! Judgment is rendered. not for the whole debt. but
for the instament only, and the Sheriff is prohib-
tied from levying any execution issued on such
| Judgment till after the 1st day of January follow
| ing the rendition of the judgment: Provided,
hotoevcr,' 1--WE quote verbatim) ''any debtor ten
| dering or paying to his creditor Oh any debt CON
tracted prior to LIST May, G5, the tenth of his
| Indebtedness without suit having been brought
Oh the same, the said one-tenth shall be entered
| as credit the evidences of said Indebtedness;
thereafter the remainder of said inde btedness shall
not be sued Oh for twelve months after the pay
ment or tender of said one-tenth." Thereafter
tbere'H be no afternoon preaching after this in the
atternOOn.)
Did such production this proviso ever
emenate from jursts and law givers before-or
behind! The grandest conceptions of Scion and
Lycurgus pale into utter insignifcance. Why
lust think of it The Legislature of North Caro-
lima has solemnly declared that when debtor
paws a portion of his debt the payment shall be
entered as credit on his note! Isn't that mar
| yel,ns1 and won't it be so convenient in prac-
.ice But, mind you this highly beneficial
actment applies only to debts contracted prior to
Nav, rs. Ifa debtor pays part of debt con-
tracted since May. '65, you have no right. under
this act to enter such payment as a credit on his
note. Our Legislature, you perceive, understand
the philosophy of discrimination. They know
what's what and what amt what But this pro-
viso goes further still: 1t provides that if the
debtor tenders portion of his indebtedness to his
creditor he shall have credit on his note for the
: amount of Indebtedness so rendered! The vexed
,u..,;on of legal tender has thus been (inciden-