Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1873-05-01
UNDERWOOD VS.. M'vEIGE

.s@4 UNDERWOOD VS.. A'vEIag %, Il,
RICHMOND, Va, April T24-The
Supreme Court Of Appeals has rendered
Adhesion in the case of Underwood vs..
McVeigh, affirming the Judgment Of
the Corporation Court of Alexandria,
which directed writs to issue ejecting
Judge Underwood, g.-ofb the United
States District Court, from the possess
ion of a handsome. residence; in Alex
.andria, purchased by him at ,confsea-
ton sale ordered by himself in 1854.
Nov eigh, owner of the property, land
WHO went to Richmond during the war,
introduced testimony to show, that
Cakes Anes, John B. Alley, Samuel
/ Hooper and Underwood and son, had
organized to cause confscation pro-
ceedeedlngs to be instituted. ,4a ..,..-
The Richmond ,E'aquser gives the
particulars Of the case; l..ei[ n....
1T cam, up upon appeal by Judge
{ NORWOOD from. a, decision of the
Corporation Court of Alexandria, in. an
action Of ejectment brought By: Mr..
McNeigh against him and the. trustee
of his wife, to recover possession Of the
handsome residence Of. NJ, lAoVeigl, in
Alexandria, occupied by Underwood
for the past eight. OF nine years, J,naeY;
wood claimed under two titles ~. :,
First. A deed from the marshal Of
the, United States.to Mrs, underwood
(his swife) at purchaser under a sale
made under .confiseatfon proceedings OF
the District Court of the United States
presided oyer by Justice Underwood at
the tiine, and -. -
SecbnH Under deed made to his
wife, as purchaser, at a sale made by
the Sheriff of Alexandria, under attach.
mentpreceedings instituted by creditors
against McV eigh, in the State court.
Underwood and the trustee Of Mrs
Underwood commended that by these
deeds they acquired the legal title to
property; McVeigh contended that the
proceedings themselves showed that
they were procured by fraud, in which
Judge Underwood participated, and, il
addition, introduced the evidence Of
three disinterested, respectable and
unimpeached witnesses, to prove the
fraud. The question of fraud was sub
united to the jury by. the Corporation
Court of Alexandria, and the Jury
found in favor of the plaintiff, thus sus-
timing the charge of fraud. That
there was no partnership in the YER
dict is Enthusiastically proved, by the
fact that Of the gentlemen composing
the jury several were Radicals, and al
were of high standing and good char
actsr in their community. Judge I'm
derwood appealed from the judgement
OF the Corporation Court Of Alexan-
dria to the Supreme Court of Appeals
Of this State, and the latter court yes
terday decided that the judgement Of
the Alexandria Corporation Court and
tie verdict Of its jury were plainly
correct and therefore, unanimously
affirmed its decision. The Supreme
Court said that the purchase by Judge
Underwood of McVeigh property, at
an: enormous sacratice under a decree
OF his own court, was tranactlon un
der a decree of his own court, was q
transaction, under the circumstances
which must Hshock the moral sense Of
every honest mans" that the fraud was
unqnestionably proved before the jury.
and that Underwood had not asked q
| new trial upon the ground the verdict
was contrary to the evidence, and that
if he had made such a motion the
Peeurt would have been compelled to
Override it, because it was plainly
right The effect of this decision, will
be to restore McYeigh to the possession
Of bis residence, and enable him to re
cover from Judge Underwood and his
sureties all the naesne profits and rents
for the time he has had possession. Of
the premises. The particular property
sued for is estimated to be worth $25,
900. There are about twenty other
Epieces Of property Of large value
belonging to McVeigh, il which sim
Eilar proceedings We're had, and TO Re
cover which his counsel Will at once
institute actions Of ejeetment. in The
Alexandria Court against, the purchas;,
ers at the confscation, and attachment
sales who were, as the. testimony in
Underwood's case shows, stin the ring'
with him in effeeting the fraud. -
IT. is said that Underwood intends in
his case to appeal to the Supreme Conr1
of the United States But if he should
do SO it would obviously be merely, fol
delay, for that court, when his case
was before it in 1870 in another aspect
said in its unanimous opinion that his
conduct was blot npon our jjurispr.i
denoe and civilization" Yf =, =
The opinion Of the Supreme Court
was delivered by Judge Christian, al
the Judges coneurring. The. case Wa.
argued Tor Judge Underwood BY Mr..
S. Ferguson Beach, Of Alexandria, and
Messrs John Howard and james Alfred
Jones for McVeigh.
Colonel Henry Cutler, of Frederick