The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-29
ID ctsiOn Of cold SRse-sround Re ats
RRRnhle ln Gold.

D. ctsiOn of u cold aRse-Ground Re ats
Payable tn Cold.
In the Court OF Common Pleas yesterday Judge
King delivered an able and elaborate opinion in O
case of Benjamin 4 Horwitz VS.. Thomas G. Butler,
be remembered, were tnat Mr. Horwitz is the owner
oi a rent Is 9'ng & og, Of lot OF ground on Water
street, leased in lISl, by Daniel BOwly in which tne
rent is reserved IN he following words - Ye ding
and paying TO the said Daniel Bowly his heirs aud
asslRhs the yeariy rent or sum OF fifteen pounds,
golden Puiuei s, weighing five penny wegnis aud SIX
grams, at thirty-fve shilllngs each and her 20
ana snyer a. the present established weight aud
rat, according to act Ut Assembly,"
Ii was agreed that the current pound of the state
OF Mary land was equal TO 81 663, and, therefore, D.,
that fifteen pounds spoken of as pa able ID 20 d
and silver are equal to $40 in gold; that gold
wol til 145 IN CURRENCY or United States eGa
notes commonly ca led "greenba . on the LAT of
January. 1866, when the rent which the Is
brought TO eeoyer was due and payable and that
The 'um OF sac in ''lega enders," was rendered by
the appellee to MIR. HJrwItz and refused by him.
The sum of SOS in egal-tenders beng demanded ar
the value of the $40 IN god the 1st of January,
1856 which Mr. Butler refusing to pay, suit was
brought. The plaintiff consent to formal judg-
ment against him before the magistrate without a
trial IN order 10 have the case heard and decided by
the Court of Common Pleas
Judge King, after referring to the great import
ance OF the question to be determined, and after
reviewing at length the various acts of Congress
relating to the subject 1.-THE conshtutionalIty of
which Mr.. Horwitz IN his ar ument concededl,
adverten TO the points raised in the arguments and
then arrives at the following conc us ons $50
long, therefore, as Congress recognizes by law the
existence of two dislinct kinos of currency, it
seems obvious 10 me that the Court should recog.
nize the validity of contract which expressly pro-
ydes for the pay ment OF debt in either OF them
1t has been said, and very forcbly, that the Court
must render ITS judgment for so many dollars
and cents, without reference to the carrency
in which the judgment is to be paid, and
that, therefore, in case Of breach of a
contract for the pa ment of gold, 1T would
be incompetent for the Court to add the pre-
m um on gold, and render judgment accord
mgly. contract for the payment of debt IN 90 d
and silver. s unquesonaby legal contract, and to
est mate the damages in case of breach. in another
currency-a paper curIency-and place 1t on level
WIN gold and silver, when the lnfexiDle laws of
trade make fundamental distinction between them,
is to accomplish legal fraud. The act OF Congress
may therefore well apply to ali case where the pay
men OF the debt incurred is not expressly reserved
IL gold or silver; but contracs for the payment of
gold and silver COIN are still valid and binding, and
IL the duty OF the courts to maintain them invo
late and to render judgments in them as to enforce
them In good faith rne court will revere the pro
foInto jud Pment in the ard enter judgment in
favor OF plaintiff for S5S with interest from a st
January, 1860 and costs " 1t is understood very
large number of cases depend on this important de.
clsiOn,- Baltimore Sun June 28