The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1885-11-30
IsIrA COMEDY OF ERRORsI


JOltinE tho Machinery of the Law in Richie
COuny-oVOrrulIpE the Supreme Court.
To he Editor tie IHtsiliGasor.
sIR:-In September last Peter B. Mich
aels instituted his suit before Justice
Thomas Hess Of Richie county, against
one George Riley for the recovery Of fifty
dollars. Ajury was impaneled and after
hearing the evidence and argument OF
counsel failed to agree and were accord
ingly discharged. Thereupon another
was inpaneled, and Etter hearing the
evidence and argument Of counsel return
ed verdict in favor OF the plaintiff for the
sum Of forty dollars. A motion was made
to set aside the verdict, upon the part Of
defendant, motion overruled, judgement
entered for plaintiff.
The defendant through his counsel ask
ed for an appeal which was promptly re-
fused, upon the ground that the Justice
claimed he had no right to grant an appeal
from Judge entered upon the verdict OF
jury. The defendant nevertheless filed
a bond in the office Of the Justice, in the
nature Of what he termed as an appeal
bond.
The plaintiff demanded an execution,
which the Justice issued and placed in
the hands OF constable for collection,
during the time OF the issuing Of the ex.
ecution and before the return day thereof,
the defendant by his counsel requested
the officer having the execution not to
levy upon any property Of the defendant,
as he intended to apply to Thos. ]. Stealey,
judge OF the Circuit Court, lin which the
judgement was obtained) for an appeal
from the judgment OF the Justice entered
upon the verdict Of the jury, but failing to
apply, or il applied for no appeal seems to
have been granted by this Judge or any
other so far as the record shows. But on
Saturday, the 2lst OF November, 1885, in
order to get said justice to recall the ex-
ecution outstanding, the attorney for de-
PENDANT brought to the said justice letter
from the Judge OF the Circuit Court, which
was addressed to said defendants attor-
ney, in which the Judge stated that he
was surprised that Squire Hess should
hesitate To recall the execution, issued
until an appeal could be decided, that he
had had q conference with Judge ]. N.
Jackson, and that Notwithstanding the de-
cision OF the Supreme Court an appeal
would lie in some cases from the judge
ment Of justice where there bad been
jury trial and judgement entered upon the
verdict.
A very remarkable letter, both for the
manifest ignorance displayed in its con.
tents. as well As disposition to ignore and
trample under foot the decision Of the Su.
preme Court OF this State in the case Of
Barlow Vs. Daniel & Co., decided April 4,
1855, and reported in rs W. Va. PIP. 5l2.
Il will be observed that this Judge desired
to screen himself behind what he says is
the opinion OF Judge ]. NJ. jackson after
conference with said Judge. Now every
one that knows Judge Jackson will be
10th to believe he ever entertained any
such opinion aS Is announced in said let.
ter, because he is recognised as good
lawyer and a profound Judge, keeping
pace with not only the legal decisions
OF our own court, but with the
courts OF other States. And he would not
intimate any such an opinion as indicated
in said letter. Why should Judge stealey
use this expressionsin-the letter to the de-
PENDANTS Attorney, which was shown
Squire Hess for purpose? "He wae sur.
prised that squire Hess should hesitate TO
recall the execution Issued by MN unul
an appeal was decided" Hhe had granted
an appeal why did he not issue his order
under the statute, directing the Justice to
recall the execution, and, il as he says,
Judge Jackson entertained the opinion he
did, why did no not grant the appeal?
Here was an attempt to oTel ride the de-
cision OF the Supreme Court. And then to
trv and Law it at the door Of another Judge
shows total disregard and violation Of
the confidence iii any there wasl reposed
in him by the Judge whom he says gave
the opinion.
Public opinion will not indone such
conduct, and an outraged constituency
will rebuke it at the polls when the oppor'
tunity presents itself, II not rebuked be-
fore then by the law making power OF our
State. JUsrICE.
PsnnIboro, Noremher %, 1855.