The 'Alias' (second occurrence) 'Capias' (court order for arrest or
apprehension) being unsuccessful, a third or 'pleries' capias was ordered
against the defendant, Richard Syms. (It seems that Syms was 'long gone' as
the saying goes.) It also seems to me that the court or Hatcher's attorney
'may' (my guess) have indicated Henry Hatcher to be an 'assignee'
(individual to whom a title, claim, property, interest or right has been
transferred) of Samuell Hatcher simply to demonstrate that Henry Hatcher
indeed had legal title or right to the property at the present time and that
Samuell Hatcher no longer had such right or title (maybe a recent sale?)
The act of 'trespass' may have simply been that Syms had 'squatted' on
Thatcher's land and therefore legally owed rent, or somehow damaged the land
in some manner -- although a person is liable to another for tresspass,
irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected
interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters the land in the
possession of the other, or causes a third thing or person to do so, (b)
remains on the land or (c) fails to remove a thing he is under a duty to
remove (livestock for one example, or a building in disrepair?) However,
I'm uncertain as to whether this precise definition applied in colonial
times.
Maybe Syms had been living on the property of Samuell Hatcher before it was
transferred to Henry Hatcher, and Syms didn't have a rental or lease
agreement -- and wouldn't remove himself from the land as ordered by Henry
Hatcher when he initially purchased it....I'm just thought-wandering. But
why waste time in court if Syms was gone? Hatcher must have felt that some
financial value was lost from Syms' trespassing, to my way of thinking.
Conversely, now that I think further, if a person does not pursue a
particular legal action (ejectment or suing for tresspass in this case) and
allows an illegal action to continue without objection, he may lose the
right to later take such legal action.
Finding the third or later court record of this case would be enlightening
but finding record of the second instance is a fortunate find in itself.
My two cents.
Neil McDonald
----- Original Message -----
From: "nelhatch" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 8:56 PM
Subject: [VA-ROOTS] Legal definition needed.......
HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com
HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm
"One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a
brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld
I have the following record that I'm not sure I understand......
Goochland County, Virginia
Court Order Book 1730-1731
December Court 1730
Hatcher vs. Symes
In the Action of Trespass on the Case between Henry Hatcher Assignee of
Samuell Hatcher Plt. and Richard Syms Defendt. the sheriff having made
return on the Alias Capias that the Deft. is not to be found and he failing
to appear on the Plts. motion a Plurias Capias is awarded against the Deft.
returnable to the next Court.
My understanding is that an "assignee" has had certain "rights" transferred
to him, usually involving some sort of property. But in a "trespass" case,
that definition doesn't seem to make sense.
So....why would Henry Hatcher be the "assignee" of Samuel Hatcher and what
exactly was "assigned" to him?
One thought I had is that Henry lived in Goochland where the trespass
occurred but Samuel, the owner of the land trespassed upon, did not. So
Samuel "assigned" Henry to represent him in the Goochland court.
Is this a possibility and are there other reasons to explain this
assignment?
Thanks for any and all input!
Nel Hatcher
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
