The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-04
requisite qualifications, and the persons thus
selected have all the powers and perform the
duties of Judges of election,

| ceplatiOn OF the Term, OUT mere appOlntees,
required to perform certain duties, as the oc-
casion arose for their performance, subject to
removal by the power which appointed them
whenever the public interests required it.
DANGEROUS POWER.
It was argued here that this is dangerous
power TO rest in a county court-a power
which may be welded By partisan judge
for evil purposes on the eve of an i'm.
portant election. The argument proves too
much. 1t goes to show that these tribunals
ought not, In the first instance, to have
been clothed with the power of appointing
Judges Of election. There is manifestly more
danger OF the qualification of personal and po-
litcal preferences in the appointment Of all
| the Judges Of large election district than in
the occasional removal ofone of them. The oc-
casions will be very rare upon wh!cha county
or corporation judge will incur the hszird
| of public observation and censure by the
| removal of competent and faithful othcer
| upon mere personal. or political grounds.
Surely tribunal fit to be clothed with the
power of removing at will every county
officer elected by the people can be safely
trusted with that Of removing its own ap-
[ pointee, the incumbent of a subordinate po-
sition. And, lastly, if there is any weight in
| the argument it should be addressed to the
Legislature, and not TO the courts.
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE.
The learned counsel in this case have re.
| lied much upon the ground that the lncu %.
| bent is to be removed for an alleged offence,
of which he has been tried and acquitted by
the verdict Of jury. According to the state
ment made in the petition, this scquittal was
upon an indictment, or indictments, charg-
I inu potitinnar-firpt with fran1nlpntlv mt.
ting ballots into the ballot box second,
with wilful neglect of duty by knowingly
allowing ballots to be put in the box which
should not have been put there, and with
allowing others to be taken out which ought
not TO have been. taken out
| Now, the petitioner may be guiltless OF
each Of the offences charged, and yet, as al
legged by the Hastings judge, he may have
been guilty Of gross neglect i'll regard to these
very ballots.
The evidence adduced on the trial may
have been legally insufficient to establish the
offences named in the indictment; and yet it
may have satisfied the honorable judge Of the
Hastings Court that the petitioner is not a
| fit and proper person to be intrusted with
the important powers and privileges apper-
| tanning to such position. We know nothing
Of the merits Of the case. We are not 10 be
understood as expressing any opinion in re.
gard to the conduct of the petitioner. That
is subject exclusively for the consideration
Of the Hastings Court. That court being
clothed with the power of removal, its deci-
sion is not the subject of record in this court.
| For these reasons We think the writ OF pro.
hibition should be refused.
"The Eire-Fiend !" 10 be Hung.
| Judge Moucure delivered the opinion of
the court in the case of Hillery Page Us. The
| Commonwealth. Page was sentenced to
| death on two indictments for burning houses
| on the farm Of Colonel Francis G. Rutfin, in
| Chesterfield county. In the case arising un.
der Indictment numbered decision was
reserved. The following were the points
raised in the case under consideration Gu-
dictment No.. ~
! Bill of exceptions No. was an exception
to the ruling Of the court in refusing man
damus requiring the magistrates who had
ieXamined the prisoner to send him on TO the
next term Of the Circuit Court, instead of
the one then in session. Bills Nos. 2, 3, 4,
10, 6, 7, and II, all raised, in variety OF
forms, the question of the legal effect of the
judgment OF the Court of Appeals in the
former disposition of his case as regarded
his plea of autrefois dcquit. The prisoner
| IUdl dS IuC SOuiI VI hppCaio 1ASa
said be was not guilty of burning Colonel
!, Ruffin's house he could not be convicted for
!, that offence. The argument used was that
whenever the evidence in the then present
case would have convicted the prisoner, il
properly adduced in the former trial, the
jury must find the prisoner has already been
tried for thst offence. The prisoner con-
tended that although the offences We're diff.
ferent, the evidence produced In the two
trials was the same. This was the principal
point Of the case, and was fully and ably
discussed by Judge Moncure.
The eighth bill of exceptions raised the
question as to the admissibIl'y of some evil
dence of Colonel Ruffn in answering ques.
ton propounded by the Commonwealth on
the ground that it was the expression on the
) part of the witness of legal opinion. The
, ninth raised the same point in different FORM
) The tenth was against the ruling Of the
: court in not allowing the jury to carry to
2 their rooms the opinion of the Court of APP
pesls rendered in the former case. The
twelfth and thirteenth raised the point of the
Judges power to send to Petersburg for 8
Jury when there was no evidence that jury
could not be obtained in Chesterfield county
The fourteenth challenged several jurors or
the ground that they had formed an opinion
| as to the guilt of the prisoner, having served
on the trial of the plea of autrefois dcqutt
r Tue fifteenth was on the question as to the
, sdmssibitity of the confessions made by the
, prisoner to Detective John Wren.
All the points were decided against the
prisoner.
The day of execution having passed, the
Circuit Court will have TO fix new day
That will probably be done at its May term
Page is negro of nineteen or twenty years
| of age. He has made full confessions.
Lesacies to Orphan Asylums.
The court affirmed the judgment Of the
Circuit Court of Richmond in the cases o.
William Barrels administrator and Samue
Mller's executor US. The Commonwealth
Judge Christian delivering the opinion. The
two deceased left considerable legacies tc
orphan asylums in Lynchburg and Rich
mord, and it was claimed that they were
exempt from the collatersl-inheritance tax o
the State.
The effect Of the decision is that the Law
taxes the privilege given to orphan sylum
and other charitable Institutions to receive
and hold property bequeGthed to them, ant
that it is not Inconsistent with another pro
vision of the statute which exempts from
taxation the property of such corporations
OEANceRY CoURT OF RICHMOND, THURSDAY
The following cases were disposed of:
) Trent Us. Woodbridge. Decree confirm
ing report of commissioner as to investment
ordered by former decree.
Hkortarc Guardian ne Charters az De