The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-18

bis opposition? He knew perfectly well
that bare intirhation from him would have
been alIsuflicient. Can IL be that Mr. How
ard, knowing that II required three Judges
10 reverse the decisions OF the courts below,
preferred 10 take his chances with a fee
bic jndge." whose supposed pecuniary in-
terest might perchancc incline him against
the insurance company! Was the presi-
| dent OF this court to be considered incom-
petent and Interested IL he was for affirm
Ing. but a wise and proper Judge il his
voice was for reversal!
Some OF Mr.. Towards lofty devotion TO
duty might have bsen more properly dis
played before IT wa ascertaned that the
opinion OF the venerable judge was adverse
10 bis client, although, as now appears, The
result would have been the same had Judge
Moncure taken no part In the decision:
In further part OF his note Mr.. Howard,
after stating what be conceived to be
JUDGE M0SCURE's INTEREST
in the subject matter OF controversy, asked
the question, "Wby did be not then de.
cline to 1T iudiciaIy upon so grave n mat.
ter, inyOlviDg his own rights and those Of
his SOM" Let Colonel William Gordon.
Mr.. Howard's associate, and Mr.. Crane.
Mr.. Howard's client, answer this question
Tue following letter from the former eX.
plains itself:
"RICHMoND, February II, 1851.
"Judge LssDh Christian:
Dear sir.-Your et er Is mSt received In hIch
Won AK me to Give NV recOllec ian of what Judge
MOncure Slii a> To MS embarrIS, IN sitting in
the insurance cases In which Mr. Howard and
mysef were counsel aud asn whether YOU were al
h9erly to ne n Y an wer. When iho.e cases we're
called wa, ces=lrly absent IN the city Of Wash
ingion. a'd Mr. Howard consumed tie first day m
The eOpening arguia"r L. a. was InfOrnei upon my
arrival he mex morning: 50 thar am nor aware
Of Mha' was ,aid. ii anyIhlBg, by The ldge, al
t"at time. sub cqnently, however, when We at
tenjed court with III pXDec atipq OF hearing the
sel hat the can'e would not be d. eidrd at tbnt
term. and that he fC't doubtful whether he could
tax" any part In the decision Of inc c1e lie pro
crede quite Ella Orstc'y TO siate the circumstance
under which bOth he and M son mlgnt IaNc som
clam ~ iusi he drfen dut company. aud That al.
thoulh h" hId long alb ndOned AL ldCa ~ making
anV claim against nc coIhD1nv, ne ten uucrr 4 ~,
IN view Of th- 'acis >iard ry him. whether ne
ought 80 81 IN he,e 81 o. one of IL. counsel tor
ihe appellants. immedilt"iy said 'bat there app"ar.
td % MS 10 ue no lta.on whatever 10 prevent his
SittiHg Whether Mr.. llOward or myec made tins
| Ia cmcnt ! am no. prcptrcd >ltiycy t. sag.
| though nv impr 'SiOu l. mat II the former.
was certainty y,r, auXl0u, for Judge MDLCIre ~
slt. rs was Mr. tTT ne. tho anp uau'. VIII add
| that ONE uays .gu having seen In he new rauers
| an eX rici from Mr. Howard, petition tor r''-
hearing. bad cOuycr atom win Mr Gi.c up.
VIII I,e inle1se nierts ~ the case has cause mn to
DE- ~ ore Wilcntul tFcn uan hla cOuh~ti q. every
thins which m. tTanspTcd ard VnO.C memory u
rria Ion o II Is lie cfpre ore to b. r.r d on. AfcT
nlaAiug u MIN tue sta'enlent above written hr con-
CURED ftlli with m-.tNcepl. II understood INN
corr, city, thu H. was sure lhat L. VT, Mr. Hbwd Il
aud not my-clf who. after Judge Moncure's eN-
plarauon. Inn't"d hai here wa no objection 10
his iaking part ~ the hearing Of IN cast.
i VIII endeayoT i0 find Mr.. GlImc and how him
this letter before So ding 10.
Yours truly,
fSignedl "WILLIAM n GORDON
"F~ uf course V II are a p,rfect Iberfy Ia
max. any use of ms le ter YOU may mink proper,
dHd lncr writing 'hc abO'e Mr. Crane hIS handed
ne a let er ' hich he dc,irCs 10 accOmtauy ms.
signed "NM. ". &c"