Memoir of John Howe Peyton / in sketches by his contemporaries, together with some of his public and private letters, etc., also a sketch of Ann M. Peyton

by Unknown

AN INTERESTING REMINISCENCE OF JOHN H. PEYTON AND THOMAS J. MICHIE.

At the November term, 1843, of the Circuit Superior Court, Staunton, a case which had excited great public interest, in which the late Hon. John H. Peyton was one of the parties, was tried. It had reference to a change in the Hebron Church road through Montgomery Hall, on the lands of Mr. Peyton. Some time before a portion of the public road running entirely through these lands was closed by order of the County Court upon Mr. Peyton's motion, and another road established—the same road now, in 1894, in use. The closing of the road gave great offense to a neighborhood commonly called the North Mountain neighborhood. Upon their petition at a subsequent term of the County Court the order obtained by Mr. Peyton was, during his absence in the Senate at Richmond, rescinded, thus re-establishing the road which had been closed at his instance. From this decision Mr. Peyton shortly afterwards appealed to the Circuit Court, then the appellate tribunal in such cases. Before the case came on for trial there was an excited controversy in the newspaper in regard to the whole matter in which it was freely charged that the order of Court obtained by Mr. Peyton was in the nature of a purchase and sale of the public rights in the road. When the case came up for argument before Lucas B. Thompson, the excitement among the friends of the parties was intense, the Court house was crowded to overflowing, principally by the people of the North Mountain neighborhood.

For Mr. Peyton two of the most prominent members of the Staunton bar appeared, Thomas J. Michie and Hugh W. Sheffey; the other side was represented by A. H. H. Stuart and David Fultz.

The opening argument for Mr. Peyton was delivered by Mr. Sheffey, the junior counsel. He made a strong legal argument, closely following the record and confining himself strictly to the merits of the case. He was followed by Messrs. Stuart and Fultz, who maintained the very remarkable proposition that the order of the County Court obtained by Mr. Peyton was an invasion and violation of the public rights, which could be redressed in no other way than by annulling that order at a subsequent term of the County Court as had actually been done, and unless this last proceeding could be sustained, they contended that their clients would be the victims of a wrong for which they would be absolutely without remedy. In some of their remarks they were understood by Mr. Michie to assail Mr. Peyton personally. The Court adjourned until the next morning, when the excitement was greater and the crowd larger.

In the opening of his remarks the next day, Mr. Michie, who was evidently much excited, said: "I regret the course which the counsel on the other side have pursued in going out of the record to assail my client—a man who has served his country with distinguished ability in various civil positions in time of peace, who has honorably and gallantly served and sacrificed his property for his country in time of war—a man whose honor and integrity have never been impeached in this or any other community, before this or any other tribunal. And so help me God, I will not suffer him, old, respected and honored as he is, to be hunted down by the blood-hounds now on his track." At this point Mr. Stuart jumped to his feet and disclaimed any intention to assail Mr. Peyton, to which Mr. Michie retorted, "I suppose the gentleman will not have forgotten that he charged that the public rights had been bought and sold." Mr. Stuart insisted that he had made no attack on Mr. Peyton. Mr. Michie then delivered a powerful and earnest speech in which the position of his adversaries were literally pulverized. He declared as to the North Mountain people that they had come to Staunton in crowds and had attempted to brow-beat the halls of justice.

Judge Thompson, in delivering his opinion on the case, decided that the original order of the County Court obtained by Mr. Peyton was a valid and legal order, and that the remedy which the other parties had, if, indeed, the public convenience required that the old road should be kept open, was to petition the Court under the general road law of Virginia to open the road de novo—thus deciding the whole case in Mr. Peyton's favor. Thus ended a controversy which had excited a degree of feeling rarely exhibited in a case where so small a pecuniary, or property interest was involved.