The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1866-01-26

refused, orany thing that can add to the
comforts of life.
FORGERY, Perjury, AND GENERAL
VERACITY. There is q suit at law be-
fore our Circuit Court, which has been
occupying the exclusive attention of the
Judge and the brightest members of the
bar, and firing the patience of an in
telligent jury for several days. Yester-
day, we istened for many hours to the
argument of counsel pro and con-, and
from it deduced the following facts: The
title of the case is Rebecca B. Tunis us.
G. w. Buttz, and the action is to eject
the defendant from a tenement now oc.
cupied by him as a dwelling, belonging
to the plaintiff. There is nothing of lex.
traordinary interest in the case, further
than is involved in all suits of this char.
acter, and 1t would not have excited the
least comment, but for the fact, that a
question of veraoity has been raised nv
a conflict OF evidence given by the par
ties to the suit, which involves suspicion
of perjury OH the one hand or forgery
ON the other. Mr.. Buttz, the defend
ant, is a lawyer, who came to Norfolk
during the war, and rented ahouse from
Mrs. Iunis, in 1854. He continued to
hold the premises throughout the fol-
lowing year, 1865, at an advanced rent.
But, in July last, the dwelling was
leased to Mr.. Gilbert G. Walker, for the
year 1866-and Mr.. Butte was notified of
thef fact. Previous to this time, accord
ing totle evidence of Mr.. Buttz himself,
he and the plaintiff had been on friend.
ly terms, and he was in the habit of Wis
iting her house, frequently, as he says,
taking wine with her." But, when
they fell out about the house, Butte dis
covered, what he suddenly conceived>to
be a very grave omission on the part of
Mrs. Tunis. That lady had actually
forgotten or neglected to affix the neces-
sary revenue stamps to the receipts she
had given to him for house rent. This
was a great oversight on the part of the
lady, and one which would subject her
to a prosecution for violating the inter-
nal revenue laws, and the payment of a
heavy fine on each receipt. Whether
prompted by motives of patriotism or
revenge, 1t is difficult to say--but Mr..
Buttz declared it to be an impulse of
purest patriotism he took the re-
ceipts to Col. Stone, Collector of Reve-
nue., and insisted that the lady should
be prosecuted. The Collector Summon
ed Mrs. Tunis before him, to answer for
WV ohSh'V NoiO BiVAuCu IEuOTtlCc OF
any wrong intention, andthe Collector
cOnd0ned the act, by allowing her to
aft the stamps then and there. i'm his
presence. Subsequently, Mr.. Buttz
called, and on being informed of the
n in which the matter had been
compromised, declared that 1t did not
satisfy him; that he would lay the case
before the authorities at Washington, |
have the law enforced and demand his
half of the fines assessed, which he
would be entitled to asthe informer. AS
he had to incur the odium, Il was but
proper that he should receive
ton. This ended the matter in regard
TO the revenue stamps and Mr.. Buttz'
revenge. Now comes the question of
forgery. On the trial, a receipt was
produced by Mr.. Buttz signed by Mrs.
Tnnis, purporting tohave been given for
the month of January, 1865, to which is
added the clause: "fOr the house rented
for the years 1865 and '66 to G. w.
Buttz." This last clause was held TO
have the binding force of a lease or con-
tract, as 1t was signed by the Ow ner of
the property. The history of this receipt
was rather interesting. The theory of
the plaintiffs counsel was that Mr..
Butte had inserted this clause after the {
lady had signed the original paper, and {
in support of this theory Mrs. Tupis \
made oath to the effect that when she
signed that receipt in her own house,
where it. was made out by Buttz, the S
latter clause was not contained in it. s
On the contrary, Buttz, when put upon f
the stand to testify in his own behalf,
that the receipt was genuine, Q
and had not been tempered with. Thus fl
matter stood when the evidence
There is no new principle in
volved in the suit, but there was consid-
cradle hard swearing. We have laid a
plain statement of the facts, as disclosed
by the evidence before our readers, in
orderthatt they may form their own opin-
ion as to the mount of forgery, perjury, C
md revenge there may be contained in G
them. There wasa a array of legaltal. u
ent employed on both sides. We listened Ii
TO the argument of Mr.. Baker for the Of
plaintiff, and the reply Of Mr.. Dufiield;
and when We left Mr.. Goode and Mr.. Of
Chandler were yet to speak for the Vi
and .Mr. Scarburg for the de- nj
endant, when it would be submitted to
he jury. Subsequently the argument IN
and the case was submitted. The 70
ury retired about five o'clock. After W
)eing absent an hour or more they re-
urned into Court, and stated that they
we're unable to agree upon the verdict.
Mr.. Harrison, the foreman, asked the
court if the jury could bring in a ver-
lict irrespective of the receipt of Febru-
Try, 10, 1866. The Court informed the
ury that it was a matter resting entirely n.
With them, and they should be govern =
ID in accordance with the testimony -
heard. The Court refused to discharge
he jury, but adjourned them over until :
when a verdictis expected. an
REVENUE Law. Ihe Collector Of this
,ort has received orders to carry into eff M