Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 11.pdf/542

 Supreme Court of Mississippi. Joshua G. Clarke was reared in Pennsyl vania. He was a member of the territorial legislature and of the constitutional conven tion as the representativeof Claiborne county. "He was not a brilliant lawyer, but was careful, well read, and his opinions quite creditable." Walter Leake was a Virginian, a member of the Albemarle family of that name which

has furnished so many able lawyers. He came early to Mis sissippi, was elected to Congress in 18 17, appointed to the supreme bench in 1822, and was the same year elected governor of the State. He was a man of much intel lectual power. Richard Stockton was a native of New Jersey; educated at Princeton and learn ed in the law. " He was remarkably modest and unas sum1ng in his man ners." The trial of Judge Stockton at the bar of the House of Rep resentatives is the EPHRA1M only instance, it is believed, in which a judge in Mississippi has been called upon to account for his decision. We have adverted to the constitutional provision for the re moval of judges. In 1824 the legislature enacted a stay-law. The sheriff of Claiborne county was induced to apply the provisions of the act to an execution levied before the passage of the law. Judge Stockton, as cir cuit judge, held that the statute was not retrospective. On appeal to the supreme court his ruling was affirmed and judgment

505

entered imposing on the sheriff a fine of one hundred dollars for " making undue and false return." The House of Representatives, at its next session, 1825, adopted a resolution requir ing the sergeant-at-arms to notify the judges of the supreme court to appear at the bar of the house and show cause why they should not be removed from office " because of their decision in regard to the debtor's act." According to the account furnished by Mr. Lynch in his book, " The Bench and Bar of Mississippi," "Judge Stockton appeared and begged to ex hibit in writing, a statement of the case," etc. He filed an elaborate brief, citing abundant au thorities in support of the proposition that such legislation could have no retro spective operation, and contended that "the judges had been governed by pure motives and decided according to established law." U. PEYTON Pointed interro gatories were then put by the committee of the house touching the propriety of punishing a ministerial of ficer " for executing a law before the same had been declared unconstitutional by the court." The committee was dissatisfied with the judge's response, and made a report which embraced statements: that "they believed that the opinion of the court as to the con stitutionality of the law was erroneous; that they eould not believe that any subordinate