Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1885-08-22
CAUGHT in cHANcERY.

Court OF Berkeley County held nc
this place during the last week in
July. In one form or another, the
case has been pending since 1905,
and has survived the war Of 1912,
that Of 1876, that Of '61 and innumer.
able Indian conflicts. 1t is hoary
with age, but as full Of yirility and
life as a two-ycar-old Texan steer,
and it stands q fair chance of stand
ing by the grave of those now direct
~ interested in it, as it has in the
past stood by aud witnessed the de-
mise of former litigant, counsel and
Judge. " Herman VS.. Minghini ~
is the was this venerable example
of "the laws delays y stands upon
the docket.
Briefly stated, the history of the
case is this /: As tar back ms 1905
suit was brought, involving certain
parties IN interest, by Gen. Elisha
Boyd. In 1918 Luke Herman, AS
signee OF one Dennis Cahill, record
ed judgment against Ioseppi Min.
lghini upon the bonds which had been
executed in 1904. Minghini il 1919
obtained from the ronrt an order
which enjoined the collection orthc
Judgment debt; the injunction
granted being due to litigation be.
tween the said Minghini and one
Luke Pentoaey in which Minghini
claimed certain sets-oif TO the debt
due Herman. In 1881 the Conrt Of
Appeals of Virginia handed down a
fiual decision in the last named pro-
ceedings. Tiernan in the meantime
had removed to Baltimore, and was
mot Informed until 1887 that decis-.
ion had been reached by the higher
court after the discovery was made
the original papers in the first suit
had all been lost, and that the law
mediums afford no channels l,y
which the case could be reconstruct
ed dc moro. This objection was not
removed until 1912, at which time
Virginia Legislature passed an act
permitting it to be done.
The injunction spoken Of above
still remained i'll force, and was not
4 dissolved until 1916. Three years
later suit was instituted against
the administrator and heirs Of JOS
eppi Minghini to subject the assets
of his estate to the payment OF the
1918 judgment. In 1859 the case
was carried to the District Court at
Winchester, thence to the Court OF
Appeals, where it rested from 1861
to 1870, when it was again revived.
From its very inciplency the case
had been warmly and vigorously
contested, every technical or other
point which could be nscd has been
employed to prevent recovery. Re-
ports were set aside, and numer
Gus decisions bearing on some point
or another have been entered. The
recent endeay0r was to reach prop.
erty in the hands of Slnoni Min.
ehin's heirs, Slmoni Minghini being
administrators dc bonus non OF Josep.
| pi, and the commissioners report
showing that the said administrators
received more than enough from
Joseppi's estate to pay the debt.
The decision of Judge Fleming has
the effect of fixing the liability and
it makes the estate OF Simoni Min
ghini responsible for the debt. The
case though is by no means ended,
and 1t may be for years and it may
be forever familiar title to sew.
eral generations yet unborn.
The following Circuit Court pages
have from time to time figured in it,
and possibly more Judges Doug
las, Parker, Hall, Hoge, Faulkner
Fleming /; and the following counsel
General Elisha Boyd, M. I. Hunter,
Robt. Y. Conrad, Jno. r. Cooke, ID.
H. Conrad, Obed Wait, Philips, Pen
dleton and Lee were in the original
suits. Later we find G. j. Faulkner,
Andrew Hunter, w. s. Wilson,
w. II. Fl. Flick. At the recent
term the case was most ably and ex-
haustiyely argued orally by Hon.
+. Boyd Faulkner {who was assisted
by ID. G. Westenhaver,) for the plain
tiff and by Capt. George Baylor for
the defence. Written arguments
were filed by Hon. Holmes Conrad
for the defendants and by g. j.
Faulkner (now dead, for the plain
tiffs.
An examination OF some of the
names will show how the case has
descended through several genera
tons from father to son, and it may,
like the brook, thus go on Gd intiasif-
tum. Handy well say that when
you get in chancery you never get
| ut.-Inteltigencer.