The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-12-03
THE SUPREME COURT.
Important Opini0ns Rendered /
Yesterday.

Ile supreme SoGEt Ol Appeais, OuuSC Nv
;. T., Moncure presiding, yesterday delivered
opinions. in the following cises:
Morgan vs. The Commonwealth. From
he Circuit Court OF Matthew's county. Re-
eersed'; Judge Anderson delivering the
opinion OF the court, as follows: ,.s
This Is an indictment against the plaintiff
10 error 10 the County Court OF Matthews for
taking oysters with, ordinary oyster.tongs
three counts In the Indictment, but they do
not materially differ In the charge made
against the defendant. There was demura1
rer to the indictment and to each count
thereon, in which the defendant Joined,
which was operrnled by the court and the
defendant plead not guilty. Upon the issue
tho jury found the defendant guilty and as
sessed bis ssne at ten dollars, for which there
was judgment against him, aud upon wfsts
of error and supersededs to that judgment
tho Circuit Court Of Matthews affirmed It.;
and the cause II brought here upon writ OF
error and supersedeas TO the judgment OF
the Circuit Court. s,
The court Is Of opinion that all the counts
in the indictment are fatally defective be-
cause they charge no offence against the law.
The Constitution of Virginia (article 10,
section q expressly provides that "no tax
shall be imposed on any Of the citizens OF
this State for the privilege Of taking or catch.
ing oysters from their natural beds With
tonss.N But q tax on the amount Of sales OF
oysters so taken is authorized. If he bad
been taxed on the amount OF sales OF oysters,
which might lawfully be done, and which
was the design of the statute, he might be
addicted for taking the oysters for sale with
out paying the tax. Butthe indictment does
not so charge in either OF the counts. He
might have done everything which the In
dictment charges and not be guilty of an
offence. Common wealth Us. Young, 10
Grattas, 664.) He might lawfully have
taken the oysters without paying the tax.
He might have taken them for family use and
rot for sale, with toDgs, which would have
been no offence. The indictment must clear.
ly allege the offence described in the statute.
(Old's case, Is Grattan, 9l5.) II the statute
under which this Indictment is made de.
scribes any offence at all, it is the refusal to
pay. or non-payment of, tax on oysters
which be has taken for sale. 1t is evidently
designed to impose taS on the amount OF
sales oil the oysters taken. And the non.
payment of tax SO imposed is the offence.
The taking Of oysters dd h6itun. If not for
sale or planting for sale without paying the
lax, is no GuSUCS. IL Is NuACCSSsolg ~ SSh0
slider the instructions. .....-sm. .....,
The court is of opinion, therefore, that
the county court erred in overriding the
demurrer, and the circuit court erred in al
frming the judgment of the county court.
IL is therefore considered that the Judgment
of the circuit court be reversed and anDulled,
and The court proceeding to enter such
as the circuit court ought to have entered, II
is considered that the judgment OF the county
court be reversed and annulsed, and that the
plaintiff in error be discharged from further
prosecution under this Indictment, and go
thereof without day.
FREED FROM FINE AND MPRIsoNMENT.
Dean uS. The Commonwealth. From the
Corporation Court of Manchester. Re-
yersed Judge Moncure delivering the opin.
ion of the court. Abel Dean was convicted
by the Hastings Court of Manchester. There
were two counts in the indictment. In the
first the charge was that accused "did un-
lawfully, but not feloniously, enter the pre-
misses of one William McGruder without the
permission of the said McGruder, enter his
dwellipg-house by opening door of said
dwelling-house, and did then and there
make the entry aforesaid in manner calcu.
lated to produce q breach of the peace"
upon Mary e. McGruder. He was found
guilty on the first count, and fined two bur .
dred dollars and sentenced TO six months
Imprisonment, motions to quash and demur-
rers to the indictment having previously
beer overruled. The Supreme Court held
that the second count was good, but that
having been convicted on the first it was
equivalent to bis acquittal on the second, and
that the nrst count contained no criminal of.
fence under either the common or statute
law. The Supreme Court orders that Deau
be discharged from further prosecution
under this indictment, but allows the Hus-
tings Court of Manchester to require secu.
rity OF him, if it thinks 1t necessary, to pre-.
vent repetition Of his misbehavior.
CONFEDERATE CONTRACTS.
David Ful;z Us. Robert G. Davis. Appeal
from the Circuit Court of Nelson. The case,
briefly stated, is as follows On the 18Th OF
April, 1862, Robert c. Davis borrowed from
Judge David Fultz seven thousand dollars
in Confederate money, and executed his bond
therefor, payable six years after date in cur.
rent money Of VirgiDia-the interest payable
every six months. Davis at the same time
gave deed Of trust upon his real estate to
secure the payment of the debt. Various
payments were made by Davis both during
and after the close of the war. The trustee
having by direction of Fultz advertised to
sell the property to satisfy the nominal
amount Of the bond, Davis applied for and
obtained an injunction. The points are
stated in the opinion of the court.
The court held tJudge Staples delivering
the opinion) that the contract was entered
into with reference to Confederate Treasury
notes as standard of value. The debt must
therefore be scaled unless it was made to ap-
pear that according to the true understand
ing Of the parties it was to be discharged in
some better and more valuable currency.
The only evidence in the case upon which
the appellant relied was the bond which was
payable in "current money Of Virginia" )"
Neither the language of the bond nor the
evidence showed that either party contem-
plated contract of hazlrd Ali the facts
and circumstances established very clearly
that neither lender nor borrower bad
special reference to the kind Of currency
In which the debt was to be paid.
The Circuit Court did not, therefore, err in
holding that the contract vas Confederate e
transaction subject TO the scale of deprecia.
ton. We do not undertake to give, nor Is it
necessary to repeat, the views and argumests
by which Judge Staples fortified his opinion
in this branch Of the case. a. ss.a
The court further held that the payments
made by the oblgor between 1865 and 1863,
in United States currency. could not be scaled
to the gold standard, although the debt itself
had been scaled TO that standard. The cred
itor having consented to receive the cur
reney as money, 1t operated necessarily pro
tas&o as an extingulshment Of the debt. The
court could not enter into the motives
or reasons which may have prompted
the creditor to accept payment In Ssfa
Il k,fo rrnl1 CDR