The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-01-18
From the Boston Post.
Court Common Boston.

SUIT 10 recover back "Head- money paid on ac-
count Of alien pdssengGs-Court Of Common Pleas
j. R. Benson cs. ]. b. Munroe, superintendent Of
alien passengers for the port Of Boston. Since the
decision by the United States Supreme Court that
the State laws imposing head money on alien pas
sengers unconstitutional, several suits for very
large amount, (some 0,000,) have been COM
menced against the city Of Boston, to recover back
all that has ever been paid under the Massachusetts,
statute. This money paid into the city treasury,
but the whole of il has been paid TO the State
except what has been expended in supporting alien
paupers. The first suit that has been tried is that
of Benson rs. Munroe. The ship Washington,
Capt. Benson, was bound from Liverpool TO Staten
Island, and thence TO James river, Va, where she
belonged. She was injured by collision off Nam
tucket Shoals, and put into Boston, In n crippled
condition, and landed her passengers here, and
sent those on TO New York by the railroad who
wished 10 go there. Her consignees refused TO pay
head-money, on the ground that she put into Bos-
ton in distress, and head money could not be de-
manded of a vessel 30 situated. The superintend
ent of alien passengers denied that she a
wreck, or that she came within the exception men,
toned in the law, and az the money was refused,
AN action was commenced in the names OF the
overscers Of the poor TO recover $4,000 az pen
atty for landing the passengers. On this suit the
ship was attached. The consignees then agreed 10
pay the head money, (atout 5000 on condition
that the attachment, on the suit for the penalty,
should be dissolved. II may be important, per-
haps To bear in mind, that the suit not brought
for the head money, but for the penalty for landing
alien passengers contrary 70 law. Inc money was
paid under protest, and the plaintiff in the present
suit contended. and offered evidence TO show, that
the superintendent agreed 10 hold the money 10
abide suit, which was to be brought. This was
denied the part Of the defendants, who con-
tended that no agreement vas made, and that each
party threw himself on his egal rights.
The points OF law ss 10 ship in distress, &c,
were not ruled on by the Judge, though there was
much testimony on the subject. But Judge Bige-
low held that since this suit was commenced, the
provisions Of the law an 10 head money had been
decided TO be unconstitutional and void by the su.
preme Court Of the United States, and he should
follow that decision, though supreme court had
previously held the law TO e constitutional. But
IL was very different question, whether money
paid could be recovered lack. The general rule
was, that when n suit was brought, and party
paid the demand, he could not recover IL back. II
his duty to 20 on and contest the claim, II he
thought II unjust In the present case, therefore,
II suit was brought for thiihead money, or for the
penalty for not paying II, and that suit settled
by paying tho demand for head money, the plain
tiff could not recover Il back, although he paid Il
under protest, and said that he should sue<or IL,
unless he proved that the superintendent received
the money with the distinct agreement 10 hold II
10 abide suit. This question was left 70 the jury
10 settle. Under these instructions, the jury re-
turned a verdict for the defendant. The case will
be carried up 10 the supreme court, on exceptions
w. Sohier, for the plaintiff, and y. w. Chandler,
city solicitor, for defendant
II is understood that all the head money, until re-
Gently, was paid without any protest at all. More
recently IL has been paid under protest.