The History of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia Part 11

COURT ORDERS AND INCIDENTS.

There are many orders made and incidents that happened in the old courts that will be of interest to-day, if for no other reason than for their age and the fact that they are not practised in our present courts. Among the first things that claimed the attention of the hustings court, after its organization and appointment of the officers of the court, was to fix the rates of charges for the tavern-keepers. This it did on the 20th day of May, 1782, entering the following schedule:

"Good West India rum, one pound per gallon; bread, ten s.h.i.+llings; whiskey, six; strong beer, four; good West India rum toddy, ten s.h.i.+llings; brandy toddy, seven s.h.i.+llings and six pence; rum punch, fifteen s.h.i.+llings; brandy punch, twelve; rum grog, six; brandy grog, five. Diet: one meal, one s.h.i.+lling and six pence; lodging, one s.h.i.+lling and three pence; "stablidge"

and hay, two s.h.i.+llings; oats and corn, nine pence per gallon."

Nearly half a century pa.s.sed before another order in reference to tavern rates was made, or recorded if made. It is presumed that the schedule of rates made in 1782 was in force until the 10th day of May, 1838, or was renewed from time to time, with slight changes. On the 10th of May, 1838, another list of prices was adopted by the court, and entered as follows, dollars and cents being subst.i.tuted for pounds and s.h.i.+llings:

Breakfast, 50 cents; dinner, 50; supper, 50; lodging, 25; grain per gallon, 12-1/2; "stablage" and hay per night, 25; Madeira wine, per quart, 1.00; champagne, per quart, 1.50; other wine per quart, 50; French brandy, 12-1/2 per gill; rum, 12-1/2; gin, 12-1/2; whiskey, 12-1/2; corn per gallon, 25.

Another order was made by the court on the first day of March, 1784, when it "proceeded to settle the allowances to the officers of the corporation." That order gave to the officers their salaries as follows: Mr. John Minor, Jr., attorney for the Commonwealth, 2000 pounds of tobacco; Henry Armistead, clerk, 1200 pounds; John Legg, sergeant, 1200 pounds; Henry Armistead, for attending all courts of inquiry, 400 pounds; sergeant for same, 570 pounds, and Wm. Jenkins, "gaoler," 364 pounds. For several years the salaries of the corporation officers were paid in the same manner and in the same currency.

On the 2nd of August, 1784, it was "ordered that the clerk certify that this court do recommend Robert Brooke[52] as a person of probity, honesty and good demeanor." This recommendation, it is understood, was necessary in order for Mr. Brooke to obtain a license from the General Court to practise law; and on the 7th of February, 1785, Robert Brooke and Bushrod Was.h.i.+ngton[53] were admitted as practising lawyers before the court.

Henry Armistead, the first clerk of the court, died about the first of August, 1787, and on the 6th of August John Chew, Jr., was appointed clerk to fill the vacancy. By that appointment we have this remarkable record, that from the appointment of John Chew, Jr., on the 6th of August, 1787, to the death of Colonel Robert S. Chew, on the 17th of August, 1886, the clerks.h.i.+p of the hustings court was in the Chew family, except the short time it was held by W. C. Strait under military appointment. It went from father to son for the fourth generation, covering a period of ninety-nine years and eleven days. These generations served as follows: John Chew, Jr., from 1787 to 1806; Robert S. Chew, from 1806 to 1826; John James Chew, from 1826 to 1867, and Robert S. Chew, from 1870 to 1886.

On the 27th of February, 1789, we are told that "James Mercer, Esq., Chief Justice of the General Court this day in open court took the oath of a Judge to the District Court, pursuant to an act of the General a.s.sembly ent.i.tled an act establis.h.i.+ng district courts, and for regulating the General Court, which is ordered to be certified accordingly." From this entry we learn that James Mercer,[54] a Fredericksburg lawyer, was not only the chief justice of the General Court, which was held in Richmond, but the judge of the first district court held in Fredericksburg. This district court was the first court held in the town having jurisdiction over higher crimes than misdemeanors. Before the inst.i.tution of this court all white persons charged with felonies were sent to Richmond for trial by the General Court.

From the records of the hustings court it appears that the "Gentlemen Justices" for many years after the introduction of United States money entered up fines and judgments in pounds, s.h.i.+llings and pence. The clerk used dollars and cents in entering up costs as early as 1795, but the court did not adopt the American count until about July, 1797. It is also noticeable that the clerk in nearly all entries placed the dollar mark after the figures, instead of in front of them, according to the present custom.

The first intimation that the town needed a watch or police, in addition to the town sergeant, is given in an order of the court, entered April 25, 1801, when it was "ordered that the sergeant of this corporation do (within the time limited for the collection of the other taxes in this corporation) collect of the housekeepers, within the jurisdiction of this court, two per cent. on the amount of their rents, agreeable to the a.s.sessed value thereof, and that he pay the same to the chamberlain to be appropriated to paying a watch to be kept in said corporation, the same being this day levied for that purpose."

On March 27, 1802, the grand jury of the corporation presented "as a nuisance the numerous obstructions in the streets, particularly in St.

George street lot, burying the dead in George and Princess Ann streets; also the irregular burying in the ground west of and adjoining Prince Edward street." The most of the obstructions complained of were on Hanover street, west of Princess Ann, and on George street, from Main to the river. The burying ground adjoining Prince Edward street about twenty-five years ago was converted into Hurkamp park.

The court had been in existence more than twenty-two years before any record is found where a minister of the gospel, of any denomination, qualified to perform the rites of matrimony. It may have been that the law did not require such qualification prior to 1804, and was enacted that year. At any rate, the first one to appear before the court was on the 24th day of December, 1804. On that day "Benj. Ess.e.x, having produced to the court credentials of his ordination and of his being in regular communion with the Methodist Society, and having taken the oath of fidelity to the Commonwealth and entered into bond with security according to law, a testimonial is granted him to celebrate the rites of matrimony according to the forms and customs of the said Methodist church." Similar orders were entered by the court for ministers of other denominations as they applied to the court. From the record we find they applied as follows: Samuel Wilson, of the Presbyterian church, September 22, 1806; Samuel Low, of the Episcopal church, September 8, 1808, and Wm. James, of the Baptist church, June 13, 1811. So it is found that as early as 1811 any one could be married in Fredericksburg, according to the customs of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and Baptist churches.

On the 24th of December, 1805, John T. Lomax and Carter L. Stevenson qualified to practise law in the hustings court. They were two leading citizens of the town and served the public long and faithfully. John T.

Lomax afterwards was made judge of the circuit court and one of the judges of the district court. He was also the author of several law books. Mr.

Stevenson was thirty-five years Commonwealth's attorney in the town, holding the office a longer period than any other attorney, before or since his day.

The first notary public to qualify in the hustings court was John Metcalfe. He was appointed by Governor James Barbour, and on the 12th day of November, 1812, came into court and produced his commission as a notary public, "whereupon the said John Metcalfe took the oath of fidelity to the Commonwealth, and that he will without favor or partiality, honestly, intelligently and faithfully discharge the duties of a notary public."

[Ill.u.s.tration: The Baptist Church. (See page 209)]

REGULATING THE CURRENCY.

In the early part of the nineteenth century "paper money" superseded tobacco and tobacco warehouse receipts as currency, and therefore much of it was issued. The notes of the denomination of one dollar, and more, were generally designated as bills, while those below one dollar were called "s.h.i.+n plasters." At first these notes were issued by States, cities and banks, but in a few years incorporated companies, and sometimes individuals, issued them. These notes were not always taken at their face value, especially when they were found any distance from their place of issue.

This being the case, it was difficult for the people to distinguish between the good and the doubtful, or to fix the proper rate of discount.

Therefore the courts took the matter in hand. The question was considered and pa.s.sed upon, for the first time in our courts, on the 14th of March, 1816, the subject being the difference between the paper currency of Virginia and the bank notes of other places, which were found in circulation in Fredericksburg. Having properly investigated and reached a conclusion, the court declared and entered on record, as follows:

"It appears to the satisfaction of the court that the chartered bank notes of the District of Columbia, State of North Carolina, and cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, are current in this town, and it is the opinion of the court that the chartered bank notes of the District of Columbia, when compared with the chartered bank notes of Virginia, are at a depreciation of six per cent.; that the said notes of the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore are at a depreciation of five per cent.

and that the said notes of the State of North Carolina are of equal value with the said notes of Virginia."

A similar declaration was made by the court each year for several years thereafter.

On the 10th day of November, 1831, the will of Thomas Seddon[55] was admitted to probate. Philip Alexander, John Moncure and Arthur A. Morson were appointed and qualified as executors and entered into bond, without security, the deceased requesting that none be required, in the sum of $240,000, it being the largest bond ever before required by the court.

Appraisers were appointed by the court to appraise his property in the town of Fredericksburg and the counties of Spotsylvania, Stafford, Prince William, Culpeper, Fauquier, Shenandoah and Page, and they were ordered to make returns to this court.

The court entered the following certificate on its records on the 12th day of January, 1832: "The court orders it to be certified that it was proved to their satisfaction by the evidence of Francis S. Scott, a witness sworn in court, that Major Robert Forsythe, of the Revolutionary army, had two children, one of whom, Robert, died under age and unmarried, and the other son, John, is now alive, being the Senator in Congress from Georgia."

THE POOR DEBTOR'S PRISON BOUNDS.

In the olden times, when some claim that the people were more honest and just and the laws more righteous than they are now, a person who failed or refused to pay his debts could, by proper process, be placed in "prison bounds," and kept there until he exhibited to the court a schedule of his property, made under oath. If he had nothing more in the opinion of the court, than a reasonable allowance under the law, the court could discharge him as a poor debtor from custody. For more than fifty years the prison bounds was the square on which the jail is located. The poor debtor was allowed the full width of the streets around the square, but was not allowed to enter a building on the opposite side. Many distinguished men, it is said, have been confined to this central point in the town because they were unable at the time to meet their obligations.

In 1840 the court extended the liberty of the poor debtor by enlarging the prison bounds to four squares, probably because the law had relaxed its hold upon him. He could roam anywhere on those four squares and in the streets bounding them, but he could not go beyond the limits without being in contempt and becoming liable to additional punishment by the court. This order of extension was made on the 11th of June, 1840, and recorded as follows:

"The court doth fix the prison bounds as follows, to-wit: Beginning at the intersection of Caroline and William streets, thence up William to Charles street, thence down Charles street to Hanover street thence down Hanover street to Caroline street, thence up Caroline street to William street, including the footways on each side."

And now having escaped the prison bounds we will visit the public buildings of the town and take a peep at them.

CHAPTER X

_The Public Buildings--The Jail--Courthouse--Town Hall--Firehouse--School Buildings--Wallace Library--Normal School--Government Building, &c._

As it was found necessary to have courts to punish crimes, to settle disputes and to enforce law and order in the Commonwealth for the good of society, it was also found necessary to have buildings in which to hold the courts, to keep their records, and a place to confine criminals until they were tried by the courts, and then to punish them after conviction for their crimes. Therefore, the act that gave Fredericksburg a name and a place among the towns of the country, also gave it the authority, and enjoined it as a duty, to erect a courthouse and a jail, which was soon done; and it is almost certain that whatever court Fredericksburg had from 1727, when it was first incorporated, to 1781, when it was chartered by the Legislature of Virginia, was held in that courthouse and that the criminals were kept and punished in that jail.

When the hustings court was organized its sessions were held in the "coffee-house," but as soon as preparations could be made it was held in the old town hall, or market-house, on Main street, which appears to have had rooms sufficient for all public uses, as it was a favorite resort for the "lovers of b.a.l.l.s and parties and other public gatherings."

The first thing, however, that claimed the attention of the court was the repairing of the "courthouse and common gaol, where criminals could be placed and safely kept and in due time brought before the court." The first jail erected for the town seems to have been built partly with brick, and, from a false notion of economy, was entirely too small, was uncomfortable and not fit to keep prisoners in. This was so patent that the matter was, at various times, and for several years, brought to the attention of the court. Various grand juries, upon examination, had reported that it was not a suitable place in which to confine prisoners.

In 1803 a grand jury brought in an indictment against the jail as a nuisance, and charged that a colored criminal, who had been confined therein, had contracted a disease of which he afterwards died. This colored man was arrested, charged with entering a house in the night time and stealing goods therefrom, which was a capital offence. He was tried by the hustings court, after considerable delay, and sentenced to be hung, but was recommended to the mercy of the Governor, who pardoned him.

It was while the colored man was awaiting a trial, and afterwards the action of the Governor, that it was claimed he contracted a disease, of which he died soon after his liberation. Upon this report of the grand jury the court ordered the small, brick jail torn down and a new one of stone to be erected in its place. This new building was completed in 1805, when Wm. Taylor was appointed by the court and ordered to "sell the brick and other materials of the old jail in this corporation on a credit of sixty days and make return to this court."

This jail stood on Princess Ann street, just north of the present clerk's office, and, long before it was torn down and removed, was "an eye-sore to the public," and especially to those who lived in that locality. In 1851, when it was decided to build a new courthouse, it was also decided to move the jail. This was a joint action of the court and Common Council, and it met with serious opposition by many of the tax-payers, on the ground that it was a waste of public money, the present jail being all that was needed.

But the order was given, and the jail was torn down and rebuilt in rear of the courthouse, the public scales, which stood on the spot, to be "moved to some more convenient place." The most of the stone in the old jail was placed in the new one, but a portion of it was taken for the foundation of the fence, which, until some six years ago, enclosed the courthouse yard and sustained the wall on George street and in Jail alley. The present granite alignment of the courthouse lot is a great improvement on the old iron fence.

THE COURTHOUSE.

The first courthouse the town had was built on a part of the ground occupied by the present building and stood several feet back from the street. It was a small, brick structure and very uncomfortable. It is supposed to have been the second courthouse built for the town, the first having been built soon after the town was laid out. As early as 1820 the courts complained of the building they had to occupy and declared that it was unsuitable for court purposes. Various requests and complaints were made and orders issued to the Common Council by the court, looking to the erection of a new and commodious building, but the Council appeared to take no action in the matter, except to lay on the table all communications from the court on the subject.

It appears that the town and county were joint owners in the jail and courthouse, they being public property and the town then being a part of the county, and possibly contributed some way to their erection. This may account to some extent for the tardiness of the Council in taking action, but whether it does or not, the court was not satisfied and did not attempt to conceal its displeasure.

Finding its requests and orders disregarded, the court issued an order declaring that the Council must build a new courthouse or provide a better place for holding court, but even this did not appear to hurry the Council, which moved along in its own quiet way. This controversy went on for several years, the court requesting, ordering, even threatening, without avail. It finally reached a point where it seems to have exhausted its patience and determined to a.s.sert its authority.

On the 14th of June, 1849, the court being composed of Mayor Semple and Justices Wm. H. White and Peter Goolrick, the following order was made and entered on the record book: