The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-01
LEGAL INTELLIaENCE.
County and state Poll Taxes.

The rule granted last Saturday at the instance
a mandamus should not Issue against the Re-
cetver of Taxes, and his sub-Receivers, before
ssgue6 e
and Mr.. Brown contra. The matter is one of
great importance just at this time, and his
Honor Inc Judge made no delay In the adj jud1-
cation oft This morning, at the opening of
the Court, he read the following declsion:-
mus The OBJECT Of the proceeding ' Is 10 to- test the
right OF qualified elector TO pay his county p0lltax
The petitioner AYERS the tender of the county
it, and il prays for mandamus to the Receiver and
the Deputy to command them 10 receive and receipt
The general demurrer was intended to raise the
70 the effect Of the act OF April IL 1866 P L. $40; Br
TRe second section of this law prohibits Alderman
from receiving personal taxes, unless specially de-
appoint least person in each Ward Of this city
to receive poll taxes from assessed citizens. HIS
three houIs every secular day for three weeks prior
70 the s ana on eieG9a ECU Gay dae %aoe dan te
ties shall be required collect Do:h CITY and State
shall make oath or afirmatIon that he is unable to
pay both and not then, unless he shall have paid at
On behalf of the defendants, It is eontended that
taxes they we're net bound 70 take the single county
have violated The law WHICH requires them to coect
GflatoT sTgGes that e, this prSvlso%p on z G The lazy is
ions by the citizens s1ey whisG freeman nan
State oGe year, and in the election district where he
election, and within two years paid State county
before The election, shall enjoy the rights OF an
It is urged reply that he act of 1866 was intended
TO cut un by the roots q system then ana now much
In vogue by watch person could vote by paying
very small sum, and TO compel the payment OF at
least twenty-iye cents per annum axes that It does
therein relates to votinS" A'"''0"' ""N
,Notwlthstanding his reply 1t still very
that the only persons to whom voter can pay his
taxes are the Receiver and his deputy and It equally
70 collect bjth city and State taxes unless the oath Of
have paid one of said taxes within fourtee months
do not exactly see the application of this last
clause II citizen otherwise qualified has paid
tany voe 1t would SEEM also that his right to ay
one Of his taxes recognized by this last clause pro-
Rese1vir The question Of the proper construction of
read by the Receiver 1t would be in conflict with the
under the organic law the voter has the undoubted
right either the State or county tax and f it
has assessed at least days before the election
and paid within two years of the election his right
This may cast upon the city the burden of paying to
the State the taxes which some citizens leave unpaid
thus making the tax s. %a%sc6aEEe lis not only thsr
the case of fPhiladelpha VS. the Commonwealth q P.
F. Smith, 45ll Is sad example, our municipality
lion Of dollars which should have been collected from
do not however read the act of 1866 as it has been
interpreted by the defendant.
appointment OF deputies sin each of the wards"
Those who would accept The accommodation must
general powers conferred on them. The authority
which created them had the undoubted right to limit
their functions They have been authorized only TO
collect the two taxes combined. and the deputy who
violation OF the law This did not Interfere with the
@ saupS Ign & Se IeST 70 s Pay aSds &
deputies altogether create deputies with power to
ose d % the law as CO e
but the action OF the Receiver not being justified by
the act, and tending to abrldge the Constitutional
right of the voter Is Illegal
the Receiver and refused to the other defendant
| Judgment for the Commonwealth on the demurrer
Judgment for the defendant on the demurrer filed
| by James f. Neal.
VS., Thomas M. Plowmap, 10 ASS IS damages as to
mani lev re tenant Before reported On trial
| REGISTHRS COURT-Judges Ludlow and Brew
No was taken up this morning but no OF inte-
req eDIsTRICT grfR COURT Judge sharswood - Bettle
| Paul VS. Carter & Evans. An action TO recover for
deense sci up Ihat they had already accounted with
| the plaintiff for the goods Verdict for defendants.
rec s' OVER damages injury sustained through the
haIsTbe defendant started the water In third story
OF the building in Chesnus street. above sixth, and
which the plaintiff had paper hanging store that
of %Feau sfh q S5SfR T5f Fcce
| In the case ef the Commonwealth VS. ManO and An
| lie inry rendered a verdict OF guilty,
| Henry Palmer pleaded guilty TO charge OF bur
plary In breaking into the House of Industry, and
Stealing therefrom clothing valued at $50. and was
| sentenced 10 the County Prison for Is m0nths.
Susan Mason was charged with the larceny OF due
| VAS nuIsinR q Mr.. GIunlock while, he was
| Ivjng on his death-bed: shortly before his death
he due bills were in his possession, ana shortly
| sfter his death the defendant was known 70 nave nave
| thtm and she ATTEMPTED 10 collect them Tor S5On S
ofierng TO discount sis for prompt payment nI Bu'
| there was no evidence of the taking OF the hoyes
and the cross animation tended 20 bring out Lhe
| fact that the deceased man gave them TO her' yer
| diet not guilty. a.. S,o,.,v priaon xva,
before the Court this morning IN yn from
matter OF the escape OF Captain A. "a Btonn t
his custody. The testimony Of Lhe % rSs Court aaS
Capnin Brown In charge was given 70 'ho S,hich th
detailed account of the proceed inks ~ ~ ,d sat ~
CAPTAIN was taken from this lurlsulic,Iivna
ierge Nv another, which has severhi uss appeas .,
in our columns, was had; ana also abat ne SHs
! be the ofIicer, had told Mr., PERKINS thas ne Wa wa
authorzed by General Meade 20 suulon ~ nis ~
,ce * many soldlers necessary 20 enect th
anee ecnien M on the writ for the custody OF Brown
lugM pQrlEiu6. said that th