The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-10-24

TIE PETITION FOR 0uPEkSEDEAS.-A IeW
days since we published an abstract Of the
petition Of certain citizens Of Henrico
to Judge Meredith for writ Of superse-
dsas against the late county levy. We
now present reply to that petition by
one of the Justices, G. W. Thomas, Esq.
The great interest felt in this subject by
the people of the county Is our apology for
devoting % much space to Il. The whole
question will be brought before the Circuit
Court of Henrico, which meets In this city
tomorrow.
| shall now, by your permission, pro-
fceed to reply to the five objections made
to the levy, as set forth by the petitioners
in their application for the supersedeas.
Their five objections are as follows:
lst. "The levy was not made ct the
May or June term of the court, or as soon
thereafter as possible"
I'd. That " the order for summoning the
court together for the purpose Of laying
1.-THE levy was not made at the preceding
term of the court, as required by law"
Sd. That "the allowances made to the
attorney, sheriff, and clerk are illegal"
4th. "That the objects for which the
whole amount Of levy Is laid shall be
specified, and made q part Of the order
ITSELF"
5th. "That the order levying the sum Of
$4,000, to be held by the sheriff as .
depositum for the purpose Of meeting the
contingent or unsscertained expenses Of
the county, iswithout law or precedent, and
that the history Of this county from its
foundation shows no instance Of such an
usurpation Of power as that which was
used by the County Court on the 9Th day
of September, 1866"
In reply to the first objection, need
only say that the levy was laid OF the very
first term of the court after the commits
sioners of the revenue had completed their
books and returned them to the clerks
office for the use of the court. 1t was i'm
possible for the court to lay the levy in the
absence of the books. The levy for 1862
was laid in October. The levy for 1865
was laid on September Z.
In reply to the second objection, will
say, had the gentlemen complaining only
looked at the proceedings of the court at
its August term, they would then have
found that the court made the usual order
for summoning the court to meet on the
9th day of September, 1866, for the purpose
of laying the levy.
Ordered, That the sheriff Of this county summon
here on the fourth day OF September court next to
in addition to tthesb according to the nth sec.
ginia, for the purpose Of defraying the expenses
and charges against the county. Also, to pass upon
the @ OF IN tnS sass and b upon
lected, to be presented to the said court by the
sheriff Of thi, county,
Ac0py-Tests: A
That portion of the third objection re-
ferring to the allowances made to the off,
GERS Of the court is easily invalidated. /
here need only refer to an act Of the As
sembly passed on the 18th day Of Febru-
ary, 1866, which reads as follows: There
shall be chargeable to each county or cor
poration such sum as the court thereof
may, for services to the public of the
county or corporation, allow to its clerk,
or to the sheriff, or sergeant attending the
same" ."-Acts Of Assembly 1866, page
III.
All of the above objections are purely
technical, and do not apply to the true
merits Of the controversy; but as they are
so easily refuted, thought might as well
refute them before disposing of the grave
and only important charge made against
the court, which is this. that "the court
did, on the 9th day Of September, 1866, by
its order levying the sum Of $4,000, to be
held as depositum for the purpose OF
meeting the contingent and unascertained
expenses of the county, usnrp q power
which has never been used by any other
court since the foundation of the county"
Well, as these gentlemen have appealed
to the record, by the record they must
stand or fall. Let the record speak for
itself. What does it say on this subject
/ find that the precedent for levying sum
for depOsitum to meet the unasccrtained
expenses of the county so far back as the
6TH DAY OF AUGUST, l7S4!!! which
Judge to be somewhere in the neighbOr-
hood Of THE FORMATION OF THE COUNTY
And find that the court on that day
levied for depositum, although the reve-
nue. in those days was collected in tobacco
and every court from that day to the pre-.
sent has accepted the precedent and levied
for the depositum. Thus, long before any
member Of the present court was GOrn
precedent established and usage confirmed
the rule, practice, or law for what else
| you may choose to call it) by which the
present court has governed itself.
find on the 9th of June, 1926, forty
years ago, the court levied for depositum
nearly Of $4,000.
The petitioners may argue that In an
cient times the court levied for small
amount over and above the ascertainec
expenses of the county. In reply, Iargut
that the business and expenses of those
times were small in comparison with tht
demands upon the county in our day. Bu
l am not contending at present about tht
amount, but about the principle and usage
which these gentlemen have, in their ap
plication, denied. Let US see, though, wha
the record says about the amounts. l fine
that at the August term Of the County
Court, 1862, the court levied the sum o
$23, 1928 81 over and above the ascertainet
expenses of the county for that year, to b
held by the sheriff as depositnm to NEE
the contingent expenses Of the county
It will not do for these gentlemen to an
swer thst this amount was levied in Con
federate money, for by referring to thu
| table showing the relative value Of Con
federate money at that date and the pre-
sent currency you will find that Con
federate money then was Of equal value
with the present currency st the presen
time-that is, fifty per cent. below the golt
standard.
Now, let us see the names Of the jus
tices on the bench at the time . depositnn
of s23, ,32s. 81 was levied. They are as fol
llova: