Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-02-15

uniform In some cases tho orners ha'e peen
in the form of Judgment against the common
cation of the right of her debtor and mandate
to the Auditor to draw bis warrant upon the.
Treasurer in satisfaction thereof. This seems to
have been the form approved by the court OF
Appeals in Lllly's case, Il Leigh, oII.) ana
adopted in Marstons case, % Leigh, Al and
was the form in which, from an examination OF
nv records, find that l entered Judgment in
favor of Chslkley, which was reversed upon
other grounds by the Court of Appeals, although
in The case as reported it would seem that nso
entered judgment against the commonwealth.
GO Grattan, 4O5
The Legislature of Virginia seems to me to
have comtem plated her Auditors, as part of her
Executive Department, rs the proper and sum
Gent officers 10 audit all claims or demands
,,gsinst the State: aid to have conceded the
,gsinst the Commonwealth, but moro in the IA
ture of m appeal for redress from wrong done
by the auditing officer. In the original act OF
l778, 60 Heaning's statutes at Large, pages
536-54O) cstab ishing Board OF Auditors, 1t Is
made their duty after specific enumeration OF
many other matters (page o39 TO examine aha
enter into gcc unit q other demands Tor money
on the Treasurer made under authority OF any
law her. to ore passed here fer to be passed.
and ia that acttbe rz hit OF appeal to the courts Is
granted, when the Auditors acting according
to their discretion and judgment shall disallow
or abste any article of ucnand against the Com
monwealth," AID also 70 any other rer=on VINO
i. entitled to demand 81 ainst the Commonwealth
any right in law or equity"
This provision in the interest OF any o!ner
claimant does not ut all conflict with the idea
that tho proceeding was adversary to the 9TH er
rather than the State IL WAS u wiso AMI neces-
ssry addition TO the law to provide for cases II
which the Auditor Iii ut Wllully retus" t ex-
anime any claim, or might in an honest doubt
of his authority to do so, decline such e2smina-
ton and remit the claimant to his right OF APP
peal 10 the courts. This act seems to have bseIl
sui stsntialy unchanged until 1888;
The original act did not specify the manner IN
| which the peLitioning creditor should pruceeo
or the uarties whom hs should bring before the
court The &C. OF 1888 session Acts page 20,
however, does and IL requires the Auditor 10
file Al stating his re sons Tor not allow
ing the claim and all objections which in his
| opinion tho Commonwealth ought to make
| ID reto'; and in the event of judgm mt, It is
made, in the I'd section his duty to draw his
| warrant upon the Treasury TO pay 1t.
Ii The law contemplated it as his Guy to make
known to the court sufficient reasons Tor nls re-
| fusal 10 allow the ciailn," and his duty II the
| claim were allowed by the court to draw his
warrant upon the Treasury iii payment thereof
| it is difficult TO see how the nature ct the pro-
ceedng authorized in the courts could be regard
ed AS iustilying the entering Of any juIgmen.
against the Commonwealth for the breach OF
| outy of her executive utbse
Tn. act of 1872 followed, which forbade any
payment of such claims exceeding S3OO III
amount without special spproprlatlot.
The law rs it then stood Is suDst ntlally ths
| same now. It is not made necessary by The law,
| And | believe it is not the ordinary practice
| in these matters to make the Commonwealth q
| party. The Auditor is trested and regarded Is
| the representative of the Commonwealth, ana
| in her absence author ID to speak and act Tor
her In this case, although the Judgment Is
sysinst the Commonwealth, she is no; psrty u
| the record.
lam of opinion that when the claim i: over
$500 in amount the judgment of the Court
should be limited to recognition OF the validity
or the debt and to al order upon the Auditor to
draw his warrant upon the Treasury as soon as
the General Assembly should make the ne 'es-
ssry appropriation mot unlike 8 Juda mt
against personal representative de Donis tesla
loris ouaido accideviat), and that when the
amount i. below $500 the judgment should De
mandatory to draw his warrant at once, unless
in his answer to the petition he should make t.
manifest to the Court that ho had 10 ,unds Of
the Commonwealth suit sct to his con;ro which,
under the acts OF appropriation or the Genera!
Assembly, he could apply to the satisfaction OF
the petitioners claim in which event the Judg
ment should be conditional in like manner rs Ii
the claim exceeded $50.
Counsel for the Hi Iginbothams reserved lha
right to take the case up to the Supreme court.