The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-19
The CHARGES NOT SUSTAINED
Continued from First Page)

decree was entered ar the April term,
1892 OF the Circuit Court of Brunswick
county. az the instance Of Judge Turn
bull, directing an account among other
things of bis transactions as Special
Commissioner i'm said suit. on the ID
OF May. 1852. a balance Of 500 was ro-
ported i'm his hands. When the sales of
the lands from which this fund arose
were made, II does not appear certainly
they were made subsequent 20 January
l. ISIS The testimony adduced discloses
the fact that the sales were small and the
payments by purchasers were mot
promptly mad, end We're made I'm small
sums aal amounts and at many different
ties The debts reported tn said suit
were large and the evidence fails 10 show
that the balance decreed TO be dus by
him was i'm his hands for any consider
able period OF time before a decree for AN
account was entered at his request
That m. debts represented b. the
Hon +. p. Buford have received their
pro rata Of the amount In the hands or
the said y. s. Turnbuh, commissioner
as aforesaid and satisfactory arrange
ments have been made with the attorney
representing the other creditors entitled
10 share in said balance for the payment
of their pro rata thereof
Subsection OO. "In the consolidated
suits of Morgan & Mcllwaine vs.. Bar
raud. and Harrison vs.. Cooke, hH was
appointed as commissioner 20 sell rCdi
estate for the payment OF dents. } h'
DEGREES authorized him 20 sell IN parcels.
He sold several parcels. but failed To-
make any report although requested
time after time 20 do so. Ar length. AK
the January term. 1876. decree was reh-
dered requiring him to settle before O.
his transactions. on the Z'th day OF
March. 1897. he appeared before the COM
missioner and reported that he had only
collected 1869 Of the purchasers. Al
the April term decree was rendered uh-
der which the purchasers were tuhHioH'.
20 appear before the commissioner anu
they showed by his receipts that they
mad maid him sSjs41 instead OF the Ftb'o'.
reported by him. showing a diuetence Oh
s362Os he had appropriated ana ia"eu 10
account FOR. ma.
That by a report fled In the consolidate
ed suits of Morgan& Mcllwaine VS.. itI-
raud. and Harrison vs. Cooke ana con-
drned bv the court a balance was shown
10 be I'm the hands OF the said n. >
Turnbuu. commissioner. as aforesaid 81
$500 which amount was promptly paid.
That a subsequent report was made by
commissioner. showing that sums ana
amounts had been paid by the purchaser
OF the several tracts Of land sold in said
sult. on account of their purchases which
II made 10 the said y. :. TurnbuH, would
appear 10 Increase the balance IN ms
hands bv the sum Of s2620S. That no no.
tice of the taking of this account was
given 10 the said y. 5. Turnbull or his at
tornev. nor was any statement made or
the balance In his hands. nor has the said
report been confirmed by the court No
one seems to have observed that furth-
or balance would apparently result from
said repOrt until very recently certainly
nor before December 1885,. nor was the
same brought 10 the attention OF the sald
y :. Turnbul or his attorney, until me
said report was introduced In evidence
before your committee. That the SAID
T. p. Buford. after percelving that
balance would apparently result from
said report did not inform the said y. ,
Turnbull or his attorney. OF the same
prior 10 introducing the said report In evil
dence before your committee nor mad
any other person Informed them or either
OF them Since which time the papers IN
the said causes have been in the hands
Of your committee. and the said y ;.
Turnbull has had no opportunity 20 ascer-
tain therefrom the correctness Of the said
report i'm this particular.
Your committee further reports that rs
10 his transactions as commissioner DO
the chancery suits aforesaid. after con-
sideration Of the entire evidence adduced
they are of the opinion and so report that
there is nothing 20 Justify any reelection
upon the moral character OF the Hon. y.
5. Turnbull.
NOT THE SLIGHTEST WRONG
DOING.
Specification No. 6: ION the 18th day OF
June the question OF letting 20 one C.. 5.
Barrow, the building OF a bridge across
Nottoway river was pending in the Coun-
ty Court.
Considerable opposition was being
made by one OF the superyisors-elect 20
the building OF this bridge. This super
visor. through, The Attorney for the Com
monwealth, iAved for continuance Of
The case 20 the July term, which the Judge
agreed 20. On the Goth OF June Che goth
as appears from the date OF the order
book), this c. s. Barrow neld some inter-
view with this judge. An order was
thereupon entered closing the contract
with Barrow. On July 30 the court was
adjourned for the term. making the con-