The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-07

I nicatiou.. which apparently raises q nice
/ point in the case of the trial Of Judssz
/ Campbell. il written by ex-senator y.
Thompson Brown. Of Nelson county:
The Campbell- Crawford Case.
TO the Editor Of he Tines
Another turn Of the Kaleidoscope pre-
ssents another very unhappy feature OF
i this u7liqlsas case-not unique in Its legal
aspect alone, but in that aspect alone DO
I now propose to discuss it, emitting LOT
| the present any al1usfon to the deta1ls
/ of the so-called trial, than which no.
greater farce was ever enacted In
courtroom IN any Commonwe alth OF this
\ Union
| It win be remembered. I take It, that
! in tie early spring one c. H Crawford.
| the editor of The Christian Federation,
published in Richmond. Va. ventured to
criticise edltorfally a certain ruling as
| made by c. j. Campbell. judge OF the
County Court Of Amherst county, a.;
| that thereupon the said c. ]. Campbell
very enormously conceived that the SAD
| Crawford was guilty Of contempt 70
court, and awarded a rule against him &C
cordingly. The said Crawford advisedly
and properly ignored the rule and did
not answer: and thereupon the said
Campbell awarded an attachment against
the said Crawford, under which process
the said Crawford was arrested by the
sheriff Of the city OF Richmond, and, by
this officer, was brought and deposited
in the bar Of the County Court of Am
herst. Thus appearing with his counsel.
the said Crawford filed his answer to the
| attachment process. which seemed to
| be in all respects proper answer; ana
there,1pon the aforesaid judge, singularly
enough, since the pertinency OF MS SO
doing has never been made apparent.
| continued the case till the next term OF
| the court in order as the judge SAID. TO
| have certain reporters of the Richmond
napers present to say what they Wouio
say as to what the said Crawford said
when the original rule was served upon
! hirn-as if that had aught to do with
| the matter. :,
| Then at the June term, of the court. 10
which the matter had been tnus az az,
| io,1rned. the case was submitted 10 the
said CT. Campbell, judge, upon tne
answer of the said Crawford. filed as
aforesaid upon the evidence or the VII
| nesses q aforesaid. and upon the aIsu,uene
| of the said Crawford's counsei. AS a
| matter Of course, the said Cra"ioio was
| discharged. a,a ,,dee
a;eolarred the aforesaid Crawford
ta u me fudge. left the courtroom ana
..,o;+ad al the door outside OF the oulia-
| NC until the said Crawford came OUT
| and the said Judge then, without warnins,
proceeded to castigate the SAID Cra"ioiu
| with a cowhlde. ~. co,,+y
Court of Amherst, the grand jury or tne
said court indicted the said G. J. Camp
hell for g. felonious assault upon the SAID
| c II. Crawford, and to try this inolct-
| ment against himself the said C. j. camp
bell selected Judge E. N. Wood. ouose OF
the County Court of Fluvanna county 10
SELECTION OF A JUDGE.
| T come now to the single question de-
! sire to present at this time. which is
this: Had C. J. Campbell the right to Sc
| lect the judge to try the indictment
against himself If the common law be
| consulted, If common sense and reason
| be consulted, the answer is easily No
| emphatically mo" AS to this, take It,
| there cannot be two opinions
| Then, there is nowhere else to seek, ex-
| cent in the statute law of this Common
! wealth. and all that can be found there
! IS contained in section 4059 OF the Code or
| Virginia, 1887. For convenience here fol-
| lows that section:
| "section 4039-When the judge OF a cir
| cult, county or corporation court. in which
| a prosecution is pending, is connected with
| the accused or party injured. or so sit
| uated in respect to the case as, in his
| opinion, to render it unfit that he should
preside at the trial. he may enter the
| fact on the record, and thereupon the
iudge may change the venue as herein
before provided. or may procure II the
| case be in a circuit court. the judge of
another circuit or corporation court: II
| in a county court, the judge OF another
| county, or if in corporation court. the
| judge of another circuit or corporation
court, to try the case"
| Surely no argument is needed, either to
| lay1nan or lawyer, to convince him that
Judge Campbell had no authority, CIR even
color of authority, under this statute. to
select the judge to try the case against
himself. And there is nowhere. besides
this statute, to look for such extraordi-
| nary grant Of authority. So far from
such authority being deducible from this
statute, its language. almost by necessary
| implication, precludes the idea of such
authority in Judge Campbell. because it
vests in him a discretion. in that it says:
/! COR is so situated In respect to the case
as. in his opinion to make 1t unfit that
he should preside at the trial"
| Will any man be bold enough to say
that such discretion as is conveyed by
the words Sin his opinion" has been or
| should be vested in a judge as to i GRIM
| inal prosecution against himself? Why
clearly, if that could be so. then Judge
Campbell might, in his opinion. have
| thought himself fit to preside at his own
l
| friend, Judge Wood, to discharge so I'M
| pleasant function. According to my
| humble view ST this matter, this latter
| proposition is no more absurd than the
| other; and If it be said that, under this
statute. Judge Campbell had authority
| to- select a judge to try himself, there
| can be no escape from the conclusion
| that he had the right to try himself if
SO be it, he had thought, fit
| MIGHT TRY HTbFcET Y
! If the view I have undertaken tc. pre-
sent as to the proper Interpretation of
this statute be not correct If it be true
| that under this statute Judge Campbell
had the right to select the judge to- try
the case against himself. then let us
| pray His Excellency, the Governor of
| Virginia, to call forthwith the Legisla-
/ ture together and change the law lest
| Some other judge may conclude to go on
!! a ;cayort, and when called to account,