The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-12-28
The Gases Decided by the District Court
at Lynchburg. I'm

at Lynchburg. .aT
The State Jownal Of this city stated a
few days ago that the District Court Of
Appeals at Lynchburg had decided that
the towns of Lynchburg and Danville are
!. liable for the issue Of the small notes put
ssIin circulation during the war for war pur-
noses" This statement happens 70 De the
exact reverse Of the truth. The Dissrlc.
Court, Judge JoYNEs presiding aihfmea
the, Judgment of Judge MARSHALL that the
cisy'os Lynchburg is not liable for the pay
ment of these notes. Judge JcYNEs stated
expressly that the court was Of opinion that
no obligation given in aid Of the rebellion
could be enforced, and that the court wouio
not hesitate 70 declare these notes illegal
and void on that ground. sdda"
The statement made by the Journal
grew out of misapprehension OF certain
osher decisions of the District Court at the
same term. The facts stated above are
sufficient to show that the court has given
no opinion legalizing either small notes or
bonds issued in aid Of the rebellion. There
we're. before the court several cases In
which bonds issued by Lynchburg ana
Danville were decided to be legal claims
upon, those corporations, but in none OF
these cases did the court give any decision
or pronounce any opinion in conflict with
the one mentioned above. We have the re-
cords Of several of these cases IS they came
up from the court below now before US. In
several of them the questions involved
were: First, usury--a question Of law.
Secondly, the power of the corporation
under its charter to issue bonds for the
benefit OF INDECENT families or citizens
also q mere question of law. Thirdly,
whether the bonds were not void be-
cause the consideration received for them
was Confederate money-still question
of Law. This last point was settled by
Chief Justice CHASE in the case of Reppelps
administrators Us. The. Petersburg RdA-
road Company; also in our own Supreme
Court of Appeals in the case of Bous'odTe Us.
Ne,oton Judge RIvEs delivering the opln-
ion of the COURT. Also, by Chief Justice
PEARSON, of North Carolina, third "loyar
Judge, who, amongst other things, said that
"the idea of the courts assuming the duty
"tof preventing civil wars By holding that
sit was illegal to receive the paper OF re-
stbels in ordinary business transactions
"when there was no other money presents
"to my mind palpable absurdity."
Fourthly, whether the bonds were not issued
in aid of the rebellion, and therefore ille-
gally. This was question Of fact and as
to this IL aoas conceded on all hands that the
court ought not 70 enforce the payment of
bonds issued in aid Of the rebellion. No
body doubted that the purpose of aiding
the rebellion must be regarded and treated
as an Illegal purpose; and Judge JONES
expressed this opinion in very decided
terms, with the concurrence of the other
judges.
By reference to the record it will be seen
that the evidence was upon the question of
fact whether these bonds were Issued for
this illegal purpose. Only one witness of
tho whole number says that he considered
the bonds as issued for war purposes. The
question of fact, however, was very much
controverted but this question did not
stand in the District Court as it stood in
the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court a
jury was waived, the whole case being sub
mitted to the Judge, who performed the
Office of both judge and jury. He had
given judgment on the bonds, and thus
virtually held that they were not issued for
the illegal purpose alleged. The aohole
evidence was certified to the District Court.
But the law is well settled that when an
appellate court reviews decision of cir
cult court on certificate of the evidence
the case is treated as in demurrer to evil
dence-that is, the party appealing must
waive all his own evidence which is in con-
fiict with the evidence of the adverse party,
and must admit all that may reasonably be
inferred from the evidence of the adverse par
ty. That rule applies where circuit court
grants or refuses a new trial in case which
has been tried before jury, and where the
1ohole evidence is certified to the appellate
court, and also where jury is waived and
the whole case is submitted to q Judge.
Therefore, the question before the District
Court was, whether the decision of the cir
cult Judge on this question Of fact was
right according to the rules applicable to a,
demurrer to evidence that is to say, the
city waving and giving up all its own evil
dences that was in conflict with that Of the
other party, and admitting as true all the
evidence of the other party, and all that
could be reasonably inferred from it. =
We need not state the arguments in these
cases. The fair-minded reader can judge
as to what they were and no such reader
would ever. dream Of imputing to the court
q disposition to evade the Constitution.
None Of the judges except the presiding
one entertained any doubt. The judgment
Of the court below vas therefore affirmed,
but no reasons were assigned.
The only question raised in the two cases
from Danville was 8 question of usury!
The District Court simply affirmed the
judgments Of the court below a,s y
1t thus appears--and we have no reason
to suppose that the Journal will refuse to
set the court right before its readers--that
the District Court at Lynchburg has decided
no case in which it declared the liability Of
any city or cornoration for small notes or