Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
# A QUERY ON THE CODE,
Messrs. Editors:-I am a strong advocate of the code of honor, and think it the proper rule and guide of conduct, for gentlemen. I regard myself as a gentleman of the first water, and can not brook an insult.
Now, I find on inspection of the records, (yes, it is recorded against me,) of a case by the Planters' Bank of Fairfield against me on a note for money loaned me, and which I never defended, in what is called the Declaration, the following words of me, the defendant: "Yet the said defendant. not regarding his said several promises and undertakings, made in form aforesaid but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtilely to deceive and defraud the said plaintiff in this behalf, has not as yet paid the said several sums of money, or either of them or any part thereof to the said plaintiff, although often requested to do so."
The question I wish to ask you (for of course you will agree that this was an insult of the most aggravated character,) is, whether twenty-one years having elapsed since this vile slander was perpetrated-I can now properly challenge the bank; and if so, what particular officer shall I challenge? Again, if the proper officer be dead, can I challedge his administrator?
Yours truly,
B.. FURIOSO.
P. S. & N. B.--This is a private letter, and not for publication.
[We can find no information on this point in our Cyclopedia. The statute of limitation might be pleaded, unless the maxim "nullum tempus occurrit regi," applies to the Code. As the form in question was printed, the printer might be held responsible. The death of the Planter's Bank is a serious obstacle; but the Receiver got its assets and he should satisfy all claims, certainly this one, if he makes himself privy by collecting the money. Otherwise, the Winnsboro National Bank, as successor, comes in. We would not go for an administrator. Administrators have a rough enough time any how. ED.]
