The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-04-05

In the case OF Clarke against Tyler, Ser.
geant OF the city OF Richmond, the Su.
preme Court OF Appeals yesterday decided
that the case of Antoni against Wright
/ (22d Grattan) settled it that the funding bill
created an irrepealable contract between
the State and the holders of consol honds
that there was nothing in the pretensior
that because fines are dedicated to public
schools they could not be paid in coupons
that fines could be paid in coupons; and
that the coupons must be taken at their
Yace-valne.s
Judge Christian delivered the opinion oi
fthe Conr., concurred in by Judges Ander.
son and 8urks.
Judge Moncure, owning some State bonds,
did not sit in the trial OF the case.
Judge Staples dissented.
Mr.. W. L. Royall was counsel for Clarke.
The Attorney appeared nomi.
nally for Tyler, but really for the State.
Opinion Of the Court.
This case Is before US upon a petition
filed by James Clarke invoking the original
jurisdiction Of this Court for q writ of
habeaS corpus. The petition and the re-
cord Herewith filed show that the petitioner
| (C!arke) is confined in fail under an execu-
tion (capids pro fne) issued upon judg-
ment of the Hastings Court OF the city Of
Richmond for the sum Of $50, the fine as
sessed by said court, and S22.05, tbe costs
OF prosecution on behalf Of the Common
wealth.
II is further shown that the petitioner
rendered to James NJ. Tyler, Sergeant. of
the city OF Richmond, ga coupon which
was due and past maturity for $50, which
said coupon was cut from bond Of the
State Of Virginia issued under the provi-
sions OF the act OF Assembly, passed March
so, 1871, commonly known as the funding
BILL" and the sum of $22.05 in money, that
being the amount Of costs.
THE CITY SERGEANT
refused to receive the coupons rendered in
payment Of the fine imposed by the court :;
and thereupon Clarke applied to this court
| for writ of hdbedS corpus, and insists
against him by the Hastings Court in a
coupon OF bond of the State; and that
| upon such payment, with the costs OF prose-
cution, be is entitled to his discharge from
| further Imprisonment.
This record, therefore, presents ior our
consideration the single question, whether
fine imposed for violation of law can be
discharged in coupons, or whether it can
only be demanded and paid in money?
This is the same question which was elab-
orately argued at the January term OF this
Court, in the case OF 6 Tyler, Sergeant, Us.
| TAYLOR, Auditor.' That case was argued
upon petition for a writ OF nanda11laLs to
this Court to compel the Auditor OF Public
Accounts to receive from the Sergeant of
the city OF Richmond certain coupons which
had been received by him in payment Of 4
| fine imposed on one Mayo for criminal
offence.
In that case this Court unanimously held
that
THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
could not be issued against the Auditor
OF Public Accounts, because he was
not the public officer whose duty 1t was,
under the law, to receive fines collected
by the City Sergeant, and declaring
that this Court could only exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction by way
OF maadanauS to compel public officer to
discharge duty which the law imposed on
him, and not on another. And inasmuch as
|
Public Accounts, was the public officer
whose duty it was to receive all fines col
lected by the City Sergeant, the rule was dis
charged and the case dismissed without de-
Gliding the question on its merits.
In that case it was said, and is here re-
peated: ''This Court is always ready and
willing to decide, to the best Of its ability,
all questions, however important or difficult,
or however they may affect public or private
interests, which are properly brought be-
fore it, no matter how great or far-reaching 6
may be the responsibilities 1t must assume
in such decision. But the Court is not will
ing, nor is it any part Of its judicial func-
tions, to decide
| QUESTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE CASE
before it, and thus constitute itself moot
court, to determine abstract questions"
| The question argued IN the case Of "Ty-
| Ter, Sergeant, Us. Taylor, AUDITOR did not
| arise upon the pleadings in the cause, and
the Court did not (for the reasons stated in
its opinion) feel called upon to decide an
abstract question. But the same question
now does arise properly upon the records
| in this case, and the Court is now prepared
| to meet the question and assume all the re-
sponsibilities which may attach to its deciS-
| ion. however it may affect individual or pub
lie rights, private or political questions.
But the question we have to determine
| (however it is sought to be connected with
questions which are the subject, unhappily,
OF political agitation) is purely LEGAL
| QUESTION, 10 be determined upon weii-de-
| fined legal principles, and the rules OF con-
srruction universally recognized as applica-
| BILE to the statute to,o. 1t all depends apon
| the true construction TO be given to the
| Cd section Of the act approved March 30,
| 1871. entitled can act TO provide for the
| funding and payment Of the public debt"
THIS SECTION,
after declaring that the owners OF any
OF the bonds, stocks, or interest-certifcates
| heretofore issued by this State = .
may fund two thirds OF the amount OF the
same In siX-percentum coupons
or registered bonds Of this State, &C., &C.,
contains the following provision: "The
bonds shall be made payable to order or
bearer and the coupons 70 bearer at the
Treasury Of the State, and bonds payable to
order may be exchanged for bonds payable
| to bearer, and registered bonds may be ex-
changed for coupon bonds, Or vice Uersd, at
the option Of the holder. The coupons
shall be payable semi-annually and receiva-
Bile at and after maturity for all tGIes, debts,
dues, and demands, due The State which
| shall be SO expressed on their face" The
| only question, then, we have to determine is
whether fines imposed for violation OF
law are included within the terms OF the
tstatute? say this is the only question we
have to determine, because the question OF
the constitutionality of the act above re-