Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1883-04-18
Mr.. EDITOR /:

Some learned gentleman,
who thinks ''no doubt but be is the
people, and wisdom shall die with him"
undertakes through the columns OF the
Liberal to give the public an account
of "Qulte lively scene which took
place in the room Of justice in Stras-
burg,' iu which be manifests gross
ignorance of the facts or willful misrep-
resentation. The facts which are
patent TO quite number of witnesses,
are substantially as follows: Mr.. John
L. Keller, Attorney al Law, Woodstock
some time since, got cut warrant to
recover on note certain amount Tor
his client. The justice issuing the
warrant, as is usual, made it in the
name of the obhgee, who, in this ln-
stance, was a married woman, Of which
he. the justice, was supposed TO know
nothing, without instruction from the
lawyer.) The husband was not Joined
with her III the warrant. When the
case came up for trial, the gentleman
attorney insisted that it was properly
brought, and asked that the testimony
be heard and judgment rendered upon
the merits Of the case. The court, IN
view of the fact that the def, ndants put
III no plea Of lnformality, ard all the
parties were present and ready Tor
trial. waved the informal bringing, and
proceeded 10 hear The testimony in the
case. Mr.. X. the Attorney for the PLAIN
TIFF, sifted the testimony. and presented
his views of the case. judgment was
then rendered for the defendants, upon
LEGAL aud well established offsets, and
not on informal bringing, as stated,
Mr.. k at once asked for an appeal
which was readily granted, aud the pa
pers held for security, no security be.
ing offered within the prescribed limits.
the papers were not sent up to the
county clerk. Some 25 days after judy
ment, Mr.. X. through Bro. Attorney,
asked for a new trial. no notice oil
time or place Of making such applica.
tion was served on the defendants, and
the plaintiff being unable to adduce
any new testimony, or even assign any
reason why judgment might be chang
ed, the justice refused 10 grant new
trial. This, according TO our under
standing Of the law, closed the case,
and the matter was thus fully and en-
tirely adjudicated by the justices.
The public may, therefore, judge Of
their establishment on receiving a com E
mand from brother justice o: Wood
stock TO appear before him with the
papers upon which we had passed, al
the same time warrant issued By same
jus tice against said defendants TO APP
pear before him in bis Dist. Tor trial,
euch a novel proceeding caused US 10
determine to SUMMON MIR. K.-to show
cause Why be should not be fined for
contempt, Code 10, Chap. exc 4th
Clause. Sec. 27,) Mr.. X however.
appealing in Strasburg, at subst Quent
setting OF the justice court, the consta-
bic was ordered to call him 10 answer
at once. Mr.. X. explained that he
meant no contempt, and that The pro-
ceedngs by the Woodstock justice were
not 10 accordance with his instructions.
This may be called bamboozling and
to some kinds OF MUD funny; but we
confess that We failed 10 see the funny
part, and think that John" did not
look on it just in that light. Thus ended
the lively scene in the room Of justice
at Strasburg.
IF these justices keep on proceed
ing in the maLner, as they have IN the
past somebody will go to the county
court on writ Of quo 'c0rrantO for mis-
user in office" and somebody may have
an opportunity of displaying his very
great legal attachments 10 such an ex.
tent that somebody else may regret
that there are no vacancies in the SUI
preme or Circuit judgeShlps. Yet the
magistrates Of Davis pictrIct will con-
tlnue TO hold their courts ''all the
same"
JUSTICES.
Strasburg, Va. April 10th, 1888.