The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-08-17
A MAGISTRATES COURT
To The Free Lance.

Tho difference between con-
sequences and results for every
good reason We expect the latter
somehow with the uncertainty Of all
things earthly we get the former
Lac YOung's store i'm SpOtsy ivania Go.
"a few days ago 4 very remarkable
administration Of the law was ex-
hibited. The following account will
show.
In the Code Of Virginia. chapter
1874. section 1856. very plain In
siructious are given for the making
OF warrant for the arrest of a
person for a Commonwealth offence,
and yet The form of warrant print
ed i'm blank furnished the maeis-
irates OF the county does not com
ply with the law. II reads on in
formation when il should read on
oath. by reference some warrants
executed and returned TO clerks Of
flee this error is found:i in most cases
the defense can let the case go TO
trial and If il is not TO his liking
ask the court 10 dismiss the war
rant because the magistrate has
failed 10 have the complainant make
oath TO the complaint. II Is the
duty Of the clerk of the county
court TO have printed the correct
form OF a blank and not send
any more of these catch as catch
can forms now in use. The old
Mayors guide OF 1860 was used
BY one OF the best informed men
who ever graced the profession Of
law in this town either as judge or
otherwise grand old Roman.
the Hon. w. S. Barton. The forms
here given were for the honorable
practice of law and were made be
fore the reconstruction period af-
ter the CiyH war, when the leaven
Of evil was stirred and kept in mo-
tion by bankrupt laws, stay laws,
exemption laws. laws that may seem
10 mean one thing and yet mean
some other thing These doubts
and deficiencies in the wording OF
bill or law are generally brought
in at the suggestion or otherwise Of
misfits i'm the legal profession. Any
magistrate called upon 10 issue a
warrant should have qualified him
self 10 draw IT correctly, and II
any one or dozen sit in hearing
the first duty is TO see that the
warrant is properly drawn before
going into a hearing. II by error
OF the magistrate a warrant is inn
the costs should be paid by the
Commonwealth and the magistrate
held responsible for his error The
practice OF calling all the bysiand-
ors as witnesses to run the bill OF
costs up is all wrong and should
not be allowed I'm the case in
point there were only three wit
nesses attended one magistrates
court once. and after hearing the
case one Of the magistrates turned
10 his associates and asked who
can we get the costs out of-their
heads together and the decision
went where the costs could be got
ten, regardless Of the evidence IN
the case. Shame on such men
with their sacred oath OF office as
an assurance that no whim, no in
terest, no prejudice or Influence
shall influence their decision in the
discharge of duty.
I'm the case at YOungs store the
charges were fully sustained and
the bill of costs is appended: Dep
: uty sheriff for executing warrant,
81; summoning IA witnesses at zoe
each. $4.20; summoning . justices
at 30 each. G0c; Constable Haislip
executing warrant, 81; summOning
3 witnesses at SOC each. 81 so; Jus
tice Altenburg for warrants. 81;
Justice Garner one warrant. soc;
Justice Waller sitting in case 81
Justice Eastburn sitting in case. 81.
and the following witnesses soc
each Robert Flippo. Ida Minor.
r. c. Blaydes. Grant Wright.
Robert Green, Arthur Brown. Henry
Beazley. James Evans. John Flippo.
John Minor. VIM. Hart. Joseph Hart.
total of $3.50. and charged to
Harris because the court said the
warrant was not sworn TO. This
looks bad. to say the least.
Yours for men who will qualify
themselves for their duties before
presuming to act in office
Thos H. Harris.
August 1911.