The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1883-09-13
An Important Decision.

An Important Decision.
The Spirit Of the VALLEY publishes in its
last issue q long and able opinion delivered
by Judge Newman at Woodstock, in the
case Of Walton, guardian, &C., VS.. Will
Jams, admir-, &c. The main facts involved
were, briefly, as follows: In 1858, S. G..
Williams was appointed General Receiver
Of the Circuit Court of Shenandoah, and
continued in office until 1860. At the time
of his appointment he gave bond with
sureties, and thereafter annually gave a
bond with different sureties, and in differ
ent penalties, except for the years 1858,
1859 and 1860, for which years he did not
give any bond. While in office large sums
of money were paid into his hands, under
orders of the Courts, in suits pending
therein, and during the years for which
the Receiver gave bonds, he made an an
nual report to Court, but it does not APP
pear that he ever made any settlements Of
| his accounts before a Commissioner in
Chancery, or that his bond for any year
was ever examined and reported upon by
such Commissioner, or that the Court ever
port. Nor does it appear that, when said
Receiver was removed from office, in 1860,
any order was then made, by the Court,
for the settlement of his accounts, or re-
quiring him to turn over, to proper per-
son, the money and evidences Of debt, then
in his hands, but, on the contrary, he was
improperly permitted to retain the same
up to the time of his death, in 1862, and
shortly before his death he collected large
! sums in Confederate money on the Securi-
ties and evidences of debt which then re-
manned in his hands. In 1862 this Re-
ceiver died insolvent, and in default in
large sums of money. The representa-
| tives of the parties whose money went
| into his hands, during the years he gave
| no security, asked that the securities on
the official bond prior to 1858 be held re-
sponsible for the default of the Receiver
subsequent to. that. date. Judge Newman
held that the sureties were responsible for
the Receiver during.onlysone year. the law
making it the Imperative !. duty of the
Court to take a new bond each year.
The case is a singing commentary on
the administration Of justice in Virginia.
1t demonstrates how utterly reckless of
the peoples interests have been those
charged with the enforcement of the laws,
and evidences the need of thorough re-
form in the system as it has been practiced
| in this State. II the Courts themselves
how can it be expected that subordinates
will observe the legal requirements ? And
| for all of this neglect, for all of this crime
| for gross careleSSneSS and WantOn GRIM
| inality are practically the same-the people
are made to suffer. And they do suffer.
The hundreds of instances in which eli
| ents have been robbed by counsel and Of
tcers, when it was the duty of the Court
to protect them, attest the necessity of
more stringent safeguards in the public
behalf. The case adjudicated by this de-
cision clearly illustrates how litigants may
be swindled under the forms of law. Here
by reason of carelessness of the Judge,
court officers are allowed to collect money
without security, and to dispose of it as
| they may seem fit. When those to whom
| 1t rlghtfully belongs demand their dues,
they are told that the collector is in
solvent ; that he has no sureties, and that
the estate has been squandered. Whose
duty was it to see that there was ample Sc
curity before the money was paid Not
the party most deeply interested, for in
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it never
| occurs to him that his money is not Sc
sure when under the immediate control of
the Court itself. The Court gives no Sc
curity, therefore when it fails to perform
its duty, the client is left without redress.
HIS money has been squandered, and when
he asks that those into whose hands it
went under the sanction of law may be
made to restore to him his own, he is told
that the very power to which he looked for
protection, was the power against which
he most needed protection.
Judge Hoadly, the Democratic candi-
date for Governor in Ohio, was, a few
years ago, a pronounced and aggressive
Republican. He was frequently on the
stump and made terrible indictments
against the Democracy. These speeches
were printed in full by the Republican
papers. Now that Judge Hoadly is a
candidate of the party he so fercely ar
raigned, the Republican papers are re-pub-
fishing his speeches as an answer to his
present position. 1t is Hoadly against
Hoadly, and the effect is very damaging.
In addition to this cause of discomfort
among Democrats, there is bitter fight
going on with the Democratic factions
the ''moss-backs' and the "kids,n the sold
and the young Democrats. These causes
of Democratic dissensions occur in can
vass where the Republicans have all the
argument on their side as to the question
at issue. They support the Scott law, reg
ulating the sale of liquor, which has been
pronounced constitutional, and contrib
utes 81, 100000 to the public treasury from
q source which heretofore, and for the
past thirty years, contributed nothing, and
the policy Of protection to American in
dustries. The Democrats oppose the Scott
law and straddle the tariff question, and are
demoralized in their support of their candi-
dates for the Legislature and State offices.
1t is easily seen that the Republicans have a
decided advantage in every aspect of the
canvass and are using it effectually.