The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-03-03

the people OF the city of New York. wh h;;,a
I, were not parallel cases This bomss .,ca
law was not intended mainly for the hsussa
Of merchants, spectators, bond trado.un'
| Wall Street, New York. It was for the b., OF
efit OF the poor. hard working farmers ,f e.l'
State; and he hazarded nothing in sou; ."e
that was the object sought t, be ACCOUNTING ~yi1g
/, cd by the trainers of the Constitution Psi n.
! gentleman (Mr. Seymour) had given :. ane
reason why this amendment should nos MS
adopted that property might increase v sr ne
hundred per cent, Suppose it should t h's,
out tnat property went down so per csn.
what redress did the gentleman pronose. l,
the poor man in that casea What il 81, 70
Tor one Is fair for the other. The neo ,ar
understood that they were to have .p'e
homestead exempted. If man wac "a
/ have his homestead taken away from hin,
| fast as 1t was improved, it would be cn.a as
instead of blessing. .u'Se
| Mr.. MOORE, of Chowan. said he do.;.,,
re-enact three sections of the bill of Anon
last. That bill passed its three seyeroI .sus
| ings on one day after Mr.. Pom recona, .eau,
its passage from the judiciary C omrs;.a
He was informed there was mot oe,;a".
voice in the House, and read from, .s
| nal to show that it passed the San. .ue Jour
mous,y. ne should make no argument bn,
hoped the House would vote at once 0u'
Mr.. SEYMOUR said that act was dram,
without time Tor consideration. and nos,"1
hurrlediy with the expectation of be,tsr
bill at tins session. . oe'ler
/ MIR. DURHAM said the new povernmo..
was inaugurated on the 4th of july. Tho
Code Commissioners commenced their 10
bors about that time, and it was an ;mroa
sibiity for the Commissioners to finish VS.
Code completely before the Legislature adj .
Journed, and many bills were passed becopa.
we were compelled tn do something to piye
temporary relief This bill was not then
intended as a permanent homestead
! law. The idea of the amendment
of the gentleman from Chowan was
that the owner of a homestead should
have the right to increase its value
at will; for the gentleman acknowledged
that he intended to strike out section a.
which provided for the reassessment. Sup.
pose the bondsmen of sheriff swear that
they are worth three or four thousand dol.
lars more than the homestead exemption.
and then the sheriffis so profligate that re-
course must be had to the official bond, the
bondsmen to keep from paying the bond
turn their property into homestead exemp-
ton, the bond is not worth the paper on
which it is written. This would apply to
every Office. By simple fraud on the part
of the bondsmenit would operate to clog
the wheels of the government Suppose
lie wished to sue the gentleman in tort or in
debt. 1t was made the duty OF the Superior
Court clerk to take bond for the expenses of
the suit. He brought up his friend, worth
$4,000 over and above his homestead. as Sc
curity upon the prosecution bond. Let the
case remain in Court until the cost amOunt->
ed to $1,000, and let the bondsman learn
that he would lose the suit, he would put
his $4,000 worth of property into the home
stead exemption, and the court fees would
he gone. There was not security in the
hands of the sheriff, or treasurer in
the State receiving money from the sheriffs,
that would be safe if that policy was to pre-
vail. He believed it would operate disas-
tronsly upon the business of the country,
that it would create distrust in the
minds of business men. If man was worth
less shan s., 900 he did not need to have his
homestead laid of, because nobody would
ne him, knowing that he could obtain his
homestead exemption.
Mr.. ELLINGTON said if he owned $4,000
and owed man $1,000, he could force the
creditor to sue by selling his property and
contributing it to some other purposes. Any
man worth $4,000 could force his creditors
to sue him, and secure the exemption; while
a man worth less than 81 900 could not force
Il 10 .,,,1
would not be laid off. The question was
whether we would allow man to have his
homestead allotted to him at his own free
will or not.
Mr.. MOORE of Chowan had intended to
make no remarks until the gentleman from
Cleveland, (Mr. Durham) spake. The gen
tleman from Union mr.. Downing) said that
no hardship could result to the debtor as
long as be was let alone The gentleman
from Cleveland made the same remark. He
answered, he said, that man possessing
anything less than 81 900, If this bill passed
without amendment, could not have his
homestead laid off unless his creditor sued
him The creditor would have no induce
ment to sue him, and the debtor would never
have an opportunity in his life time to lay
of his homestead. His amendment gave
him that option whether lie was sued ornot.
: He feare,l the Supreme Court would decide
that man was not entitled to his Homestead
exemption unless he had it laid off during
life time. His amendment was to avoid that
danger. Gentlemen asked what possible
harm caulfl befall poor debtor if his cred-
: t''rs did not sue him. They would wait
until the death of the debtor, and then the
widow and children would lose the home
stead
Mr.. DowNINa believed the gentleman had
an article in which he made provision spe-
officially for that very thing. As far as that
went he was with him.
Mr.. MOORE, of Chowan, said section 10
provided that if husband did not apply,
his widow and children might. He was
anxious that that section should pass, but
there was still doubt in his mind whether
that section was worth anything alone He
wanted to make it certain that the widow
might have the benefit of the law. The
Constitution expressly says Every home
stead. and the dwelling and buildings used
Herewith not exceeding in value $1,000, to
be selected by the owner thereof" The
Constitution presupposes the active particl
patton on the part of the owner of the land
before he could have his homestead laid Oft
Ito be selected by the owner Thereof
The widow is not the owner. If the hus-
band dies the widow claims under the he'll
at law. Then section provides that If tne
owner die leaving widow, the same
shall be held for the widow. Mark the \
language If the owner of a homestead die
The homestead means that particular pOl
ton which has been set apart in, accordance
with section 3. If man fails to do that,
is not the owner of homestead under the
Constitution The gentleman from CleVF
land asked what harm could happen unles
debtor were sued He would ask hoWs
man could make selection after death.