The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-11-09

ticular reasons why il should be passe,
now, 1t it never applied to another cas-
THAI the one in Windsor county. lie SAT-
that the man was an honest man, but Inc
with misfortune, as men are liable to, an,
should not be held in Jail, ms he was not il
any manner subject to the imputaton o
| dishonesty. His wife had some propert,
that she held in her own right, which sh,
was induced by the creditors of her hus
band to consent TO give up to get her hus
band out of Jail. The husband refused
to sign the mortgage of his wife,
property, claiming that there was no Grim
inal act on his part, and he would not al
low he, property to be taken to satisfy
claim for which he was not criminaly re.
sponsibe. He advocated the passage OF
the bill as doing justice to the particular
case referred to, and would be Just to all
similar cases in the future.
Mr.. Boynton of Woodstock, said that
the bill, as he understood it, was designed
to give to all persons the same rights under
the law, placing those who may be guilty
of breach of law under different classes
of indictments on an equality under the
law and cited cases where even small Of
fences for breach of trust in holding
money in flduciary capacity, would sub
ject the offender to greater hardship and
more severe punishment than, if guilty OF
open theft of very much larger amount.
This bill was designed to place the man
who was guilty of Il breach of trust on the
same ground before the law as u man who
goes upon ones premises a-d commits a
wanton trespass. As the law now stands.
the trespasser is permitted to go before the
proper tribunal and make his own cxplana.
ton, and ask to be admitted to the liberties
of the Jail under the provision of law re-
lating to the poor debtors OATH while the
man who is guilty of breach of trust,
however slight. is subject to the caprice OF
the creditor, and has not the same rights as
are given for even more aggravated of
fence of different character. lie hoped
this bill would be passed.
Mr.. Rowe, of Poultney, opposed the bill
as being one to help rogues out of prison.
He thought the remedy was in the Cover
nor to pardon, if he thought it proper.
Mr.. Batchelder, of Arlington, read from
the present statutes the section relating to
the transportation of money held in the
fiduciary capacity, and compared the pro.
visions of that section with the bill under
consideration. lie said the discretion was
now with the supreme court to permit the
person guilty of tort to be brought before
the proper authorities and make oath as to
his ability to pay, and be admitted to the
liberties of the Jail yard. This bill simply
placed the man who was guilty of having
misapplied money held as fiducary, on an
equality with the man guilty of wiful the t.
He thought this bill ought to be passed to
wipe out a blot on our statute books.
Mr. Powell, of Richford, vote with the
maj ority on the question of the passage of
this bill, and he must admit if lie made a
mistake then he must now be accused of
persistency in his mistakes. He could not
now vote for this bill. There are now too
many guards thrown around the money of
the people, especially when we place our
demands in the hands OF an attorney for
collection. We have none too stringent
laws now to compel attorneys to disgorge
money collected for their clients, and he
thought the people should be careful how
they removed the guards from the protec-
lion Of clients from the breach of trust by
attorneys. lie should stlIl oppose the pili
and hoped the motion to reconsider would
not pass.
Mr.. Grout, of Barton. said we have and
the present law on our statute books far n
quarter of a century, and no one has stood
up here to name the first instance of hard.
ship or oppression under it. He congratu-
lated the gentleman from Richtord on hay-
ing struch the keynote of the subject. A
similar bill was vetoed by Gov. Dilling-
ham, and his reasons against the bill then
this bill The practical operation
Of this bill would be had, and he thought
there was considerably special pleading
brought in here to effect the passage of this
bill. Better keep all the res rants oflaw we
now have, and not let up in favor of the re-
lease of rascals from punishment.
Mr.. Boynton, of Woodstock, said all he
asked was that the law may be so amended
IS to allow the poor man to 90 before the
proper authorities and make his showing as
10 his case, and he had no fears that any of
The judges of the supreme court would exer.
Else the discretion given them SO as to re-
ease in the community n class of rascals
md shysters. Give all poor men an equal
,hance under the law.
Mr.. Hubbard, of Springfield, while he
vas in favor of the bill as reported by the
yet if the house would recon-
ider the vote refusing the passage of this
'ill, he would move to amend the bill so as
o strike out the words ''and as to the priv
lege and time Of being to the poor debtors
'ath or the liberties of the jail yard, as is"
nd also the words "fifty. seven, fifty-eicLt
nd" This amendment, he thought, would
elieve the bill Of the objections that had
een brought against it, and ought to satisfy
IL to pass the bill.
Mr.. Grout of Newport. said that a law
hat compels a debtor to eternal confine.
nent in Jail, was a law that prevented the
ollec,ion OF our debts for so long as poor
ebtor is compelled to lay in jail, so long
'e take away from him the opportunity TO |
arm the money with which to pay his debt. |
We should not subject poor debtors to the |
aprice of these grasping creditor, who on
look at the almighty dollar, and had no |
in them. He thought we should |
lace the discretion with our judges to lend
n ear to the cries of humanity. and if JUS
ce was to be subserved thereby, to admit
II classes of debtors to equal rights under
he law. If this law is designed to hit the
wyers, and compel them to disgorge
oney collected for their clients, it has now
'ught man, not a lawyer, and he believed
had as often caught those not lawyers as
have caught lawyers. lie also claimed
at the veto message of Gov. Dillingham;
d not hit this bill at all but in that case,
zen the house, on the question of passing
@ bill over the governors veto, vote l20
'as to 40 nays. SO it seems that the leg
Iature did not agree with the governor.
On motion of Mr.. Hyde, of Castleton.
journed
AFTERNOON.
Reports. From the committee on high
avs, bridges and ferries. in favor of ii.
A, granting ferry to Chas. F. Weather.
e; passed.
From the same, in favor of H. 253, I
anting a ferry to Volney Rice passed.
From the committee on judiciary. against
PAT, In amendment of an act relating to
c authorization of personss TO serve pro- {
IS. The question being shall bill be read I
G third time? /
MIR. Davenport of Wilmington explained
at the law as 1t now stands allowed an 4
thorlzcd person to serve process returna- /
Q before justices of the peace and gave
m only one half the regular fees; while /
ocesscs returnable to higher court, |
rived by an authorized person, were en-. /
led to full fees. This bill puts authoriz- 2
persons on an equality whether the pro- l
IS was returnable before justice of the |
ace or n higher court. The Mica IN Give