The mountain Democrat., 1865-03-11
tmpcrtsnt Decision.

VIZ AOhSWA@A SNAuApu W SuNRS ONeHOep WH'SS
was lled in the Clerks Office on Monday last,
the 9th inst. As it "affscts the currency ques-
ton" and upsets some Judgments given BY
the Justices Of this township, il will be Of more
than ordinary interest to our readers:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, | In the County Court,
County Of Fl Dorado. January Term, 1865.
LsdGo H. NdGh e. Harmon Gold ind SiLUOr
: .s r.. -. -AiaiaG COnapGaa,.
This cause came here on appeal from Justice
John Bush's Court Of PlacerVille Township,
judgment having been rendered in the Court
below for the amount claimed In plf's. COM
plaint and the def. appealing upon questions
OF both Law and fact. The plaintiff is . mer-
chant aud the defendant mining corporation.
This action was brought to recover q balance
due to plff. for goods sold and delivered to def.
from Dec. 10th, 1869, to Dec. 6th, 1854, the
amount claimed being e23l IS.
Upon the trial here plf. introduced evidence
OF q certain oral agreement made between plf.
and dett's. superintendentand managing agent,
to the effect that def. might have the election
as TO the kind of money that should be paid for
the goods, but in case def. elected to pay in
gold coin, then the amount &as to be less than
If paid 10 q. s. Legal Tender Notes. it being
understood at the time Of1his agreement that
the amount in Legal Tender NU'cS was n be
larger in the number of dollars 90 meet the &C.
inal or probable difference Of value between
gold coin and paper mon'y. 1t was shown
here that this agreement was merely 0ral-to
this evidence def. objected, and the obj, ction
was very properly interposed, as the agreement
proved does not cOme within the provisions of
The Act known rs the Specific Contract Act"
This in my OpiniOn, excludes all oral agree
ments for the payment of money in specified
currency. shall therefore consider this case
as unaffected by the contract attempted to be
proved.
The question then occurs, is the deft indebt-
ed to pltf in the sum of 1921 IS as alleged in
plf s. complaint The deft admits only an in
debtedness Of Sis Sc, and has rendered that
amount to plf., together with the costs in the
Court below. but tenders il in Z. ). Legal Ten
der Notes, which plff refuses Ia receive-the
tender remaining good as appears from Stpu
latinn on file. In passing upon the suthciency
of this tender the question of Indebtedness is
necessarily determined. The evidence for
pl'H. was that, in gold coin, the g00ds sold
were OF the value of the amount rendered;
in legal tender notes, double that amount.
For which sum shall judgment be given?-
Counsel for pl'f. contends that justice requires
that judgment should be given for $23l %;
that not to do so would be fraud upon pl'f;
that bv such a judgment the pill. would get
only that to which he is fairly entitled, that is.
the worth of his goods; that every man is en-
titled TO receive at the hands Of Court judg.
ment for the amount he proves bus goods To be
worth, aud that pl'f. having proved the worth
of the goods made the subject of this action to
be 1921 25. be is entitled TO u judgment for
that amount. To this it may be replied that,
by a supreme and paramount law Of the land
Acts Of Congress) the U. 5. Legal Tender
Notes are made q legal tender for all debts,
public and private. except far duties on i'm
ports and interest on the bonds and notes Of The
General Government. so that for all matters
arising upon contracts either express or i'm.
Piled, thew U. 5. Legal Tenders) are OF the like
value as the same denomination Of gold coin
saving the exceptions specifically enumerated,
and they now pay or discharge a debt as et
fectually as did gold coin previous to the
Acts Of Congress authorizing their issuance. -
The same power constituted the L. S. Legal
Tender Notes Q legal tender that made gold
COIN such, and. moreover, the exercise Of their
authority has been decided 10 be constitutional.
II, then, this be 50 and the "Speclic Contract
Act is inapplicabe to this case, does nut the
la~ itself declare in express terms that the ten
der in this instance is sufficient? The witnesses
for pl'f. testified that the goods were worth
only &ll5 Ct IN coin, and that pl' Il. had in his
books of account charged only that amount
Would IL not in the end, If not Immediately,
work far greater wrong for Court to naugu.
rate policy IF deciding not against any torced
or highly artificial construction OF q statute but
hkoluSb ltS paul. c4pTGbb huu
prOvis0ns-u the ground that in some par
ticuar instance an enforcement Of the law
worked a hardShips And vet is il the fault of
the law that PHI. failed TO get the real value of
bis goods? II is not the law that makes tue
relative value Of the dollar in coin and one IN
paper unequal. Ii says they are equal. Ii Is
trne 1t does not restrain an Individual from CON
sidering one worth more than the other, and
the " Specific Contract Act" provides tor bis
securing himself against loss by reason Of any
inequality that may in fact exist. By having
failed 10 comply with the law Can pl'f. now ask
Court 10 disregard the law. and make good
the deficiency he or Others imagines does exist
between gold and paper money, when, at the
same time, that very law by which the Court
must be controlled. declares that there is ne
difference? This would be unjust il would be
in fraud Of those whom the law is bound to
protect. 1t is true there is difference in v&lue,
but it is IN the commercial world, and exists in
defiance Of the law. The Court must either
found its decision upon the law or upon COM
mercinl usage, which unhappily for us does not
coincide with the law. Shall the Court disre-
gard the law or abide by it so long rs it stands
on the statute books rs rule Of action?
II is urged that in confirming the sufficency
OF this tender the door isopened through which
may enter improper evidence as u the differ
ence in value Of different kinds of currency
This argument is not tenable, for it il always
legitimate matter to ascertain upon what basis
the value of an article is given, else Courts and
juries would he at the mercy Of Witnesses and
be unable 10 render a just or an intelligent de-
clsion upon any question involving value
When once this basis is found, should the evil
dence indicate or positively establish differ
ence of valuation based upon a commercial diff
ference in the two kinds Of money, the Court,
BY adopting only that which the law estab-
fishes H. the true standard. disregards all EVIL
dence as to difference. II A testifes that his
goods are worth one dollar in gold coin, but
two in paper or Legal Tender Mites, the law
SAYS il worth but one in gold they are worth
M less in paper-if worth but one in gd they
are worth but one in paper-that one hundred
cents in coin is no more or any less than one
hundred cents in paper-aud beng by law
equal. the Court rendering ITS decision for two
dollars instead of one would adjudge greater
amount than the law permitted, and would viO-
late the law in spirit and letter;-in one case il
would be decision upon law, in the other,
upon mere opinion. From the views here
expressed it ia manifest that the Court would
do vlolencat 70 law were II to give such inter
pr citations to it as Is desired upon the part of
pff. am aware that at first blush it seems
unjust that an individual should not receive for
his goods what they are actually worth, and
that the Court in giving judgment for the
lesser sum perpetrates an act Of injustice.
little reflection will, however, convince can
did man that il is not the fault Of the Court nor
of the Law. The Government declares BY strict
constitutional right that there shall be no diff
ference in metallic or paper money, save the ex-
ceptlnns mentioned, and 10 these the distinc-
tion is limited. In all the States except those
Of the Pacific, the currency is paper; the PEG
pie Of this State have wisely or unwlsely ad-
hered to q coin currency, refusing tn receive
the paper money as the medium OF exchange.
In the Atlantic States gold forms the artvsle of
sale, here PAPER. Business here is conducted
upon c0in basis and is in antagonism TO the
introduction of the Legal Tender Notes. For
a Court 10 regard this condition of things and
to frame its decisions in accordance Herewith