The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-10-10
Brown w.. Burton.
TO the Edjtors Of the Dispatch:

Gcntcmen.-It seems that your article in
the paper Of 9th OF October, 1879, relating
10 this " famous suit" is based upon i'm.
Ecrfe:t Information, for there are some cr.
rorS ard omissions in it which would moi
probably have escaped any one thoroughly
&cqua:ned with its history. / do not think,
howeye,. that these matters are Of sufficient
consequence to the public TO require &C.
tailed correction, and | shall refer to them
only for the sake OF doing justice to one OF
our most respected fclloW-toWDsmen long
since dead. ! alIude to the late John Robin
son, for so many years the clerk OF the Gen
eral Court and Of the Circuit Courts OF
Richmond ciy and Henrico county.
The mercantile business out OF which
this suit remotely arose was begun in 1872
bv James Brown and Robert Rives as part
ners. In 1904 Robert Burton was admitted
BY them as parter, and the business was
continued until Tie death OF Burton, ut first
under the STYLE OF Robert Rives & Co. and
subsequently, under that OF Brown, Rives
& Co. Mr.. Burton appointed his wife eX-
ccutriX, and hl> two partners, Brown and
Pivcs, executors OF his will. Mr.. Brown
alone qualified is executor. The business,
after Mr. Burton's death, was continued by
the surviving partners for many years under
the StTie of Brown Il Rivcs.
In the course Gf time differences grew up
between Mr. Brown and Mr.. RivcS, which
became the subject Of very extended and
com p!icatcd litigation. involving not only
the business q the principal house. but
that OF maEy country stores in which the
two chief partners were concerned with
o:her persons. 1t also embraced the inter-
esiS of Robert Durton'S estate, Mr. Brown,
As bis executor. contendinS that the assets
OF the estate had remained in the business OF
Brown & Rives, and that the estate OF Bur-
Ton was entitled to share i'll its prohts.
This litigation began in 1918, and was not
ended when Mr.. Brown died, i'll 1871. In
1913 was commenced the suit OF Browns
executors rs. Burton and ais. for the settle
mcnt OF James Browns estate.
II WAS during the earlier litigation be-
tween Brown and RiveS that the ledgerS,
Dlo;tcrs and day-books alluded to in your
aricle, besides other documents and eFi-
Gence relating to their comprehensive and
intricate transactions, were investigated
no. by Commissioner Giles, but by John
Robinson, who was appointed a special
commissioner for the purpose. Too much
praise cannot be awarded to the Skill and
The patient labor which he bestowed upon
W
Gle expresses it) in evolving order out OF
caaos." The reports OF Commissioner Ro-
biuson became the basis not only of Il conf
the earlier litigation. but OF the inquiries
directed from time to time in the later suit
OF Browns executors rs. Burton and ais.
Commissioner Giles was authorized by
the Court, in the last-named suit, to take
these reports rs the groundwork upon
which he was to build: except so fur as they
might be con;vadicted and correr ted by new
evidence. lie did so. and in point OF fact
there was never any material Grange made
il any change at al-in the various &C.
counts reported by CommiSsi. .oncr Robinson
and their results.
II is far from my pufpos', to detract from
the merits of Commission er Giles. No ONT
had il better opportllEif V than / to under
stand and appreciate tire value Of his labor:
as we'll as the fidelity y nd conscieniousnes;
with which his task T rs accomplished; ant
really believe that il would be difficult, i
not impossible, TO praise him more than hi
deserved.
My object is o'Aly to explain how far III
was indebted to Commissioner Robinson io
the foundation upon which he had to ouiid
His work was OF a different character iron
that OF Conn missioner Robinson. in anothe
litigation b tween other parties, and lnFolV
ing many new interests and questions OF i;
impor.ar t. and delicate character. Each o
these &c ntlemen discharged his duty so per
iectiy that no exception 10 their reports wa
evos sustained which materially affected tn
fnf 4 results.
The original counsel in the cause
Browns executors Us. Burton and other
were two very eminent members OF Ill
bar-Mr. John r. Cooke for the complain
ants and Mr.. Conway Robinson for JONI
| Burton. In the course OF the proceeding
other gentlemen were employed from tim
| to time, some having more and others les
| TO do with the general controversy. Amoni
them may be particularly mentioned MI
James Alfred Jones and myself for jon
Burton; Mr. Powhatan Roberts, Mr. \. I
Howard, and Mr. John D. Steger for ta
executors OF James Brown. In the iate
stag ees OF the proceedings, for eight or te
wears past, Judge Fl. Fl. Marshall, repre-
sentins the original comrlainants and som
of the benetciaries, has borne the mos
active part, and Others bave been abb
represented By Judge William ". Crum
and Mr.. William L. Royal. The latest dt
crees in the cause have been founded upo
reports made by Commissioner James Plei
SAINTS, who has proved himself worth
successor to Commissioners Robinson an
Giles.
| I am, very respectfully, yours,
~ ANDREW JOHNSTON.