Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1878-04-10
A Great Point Settled,
THE SUPREME COURT DECLARES THAT
COUPONS SHALL BE RECEIVED FOR
FINES.

FINES.
In the case Of Clarke against Tyler
Sergeant Of the city of Richmond, tn,
Supreme Court Of Appeals vesterda,
decided that the case of AnOni agains
Wright God Grattan) settled it that the
funding bill created an irrepealable con
tract between the State and the holder:
of cOnsol bonds that there was nothing
in the pretenslon that because fines ar,
dedicated to public schools they coul'
not be paid in coupons; that fines coulC
be paid in coupon; and that the cOu
pons must be taken at their face-value.
Judge Christian delivered the opinion
ofthe Court, concurred in by judges
Anderson and BurkS.
Judge Moncure, owning some Stat'
bonds, did not sit in the trial of til,
case.
Judge Staples dissented.
Mr.. w. l.. Royal was counsel TO
Clarke.
The Acknowledgement appeared
NORMALLY for Tyler, but really for th'
State.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This case is before US upon petition
filed by James Clarke invoking ths
original jurisdiction of this Court Tor {
writ of habedS corpus. The petition
and the record Herewith filed show
that the petitioner (Clarke) is confined
in Jail under an execution (copias pa
tne) issued upon a judgment Of the
Hastings Court of the city of Richmond
Tor the sam of $50, the fine assessed by
said court. and s22.05, the costs d
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 "a coupon
which was due and past maturity for
$50, which said coupon was cut from a
bond of the State OF Virginia Issued I'M
der the provisions cf the act of Assem-
bly,, passed March 80, 1871. commonly
known as the funding BILL" and the
sum OF s22.05 in money, that being the
amount of costs. The city Sergeant
refused 10 receive the coupons rendered
in payment Of the fine imposed by the
court; and thereupOn Clarke applied to
this court for writ of h0beoS corpus,
and insists upon his right to pay the
fine assessed against him by the Hust-
ings Coart IN a coupon Of a bond of the
State; and that upon such payment,
with the costs Of prosecution, he is en-
titled to his discharge from further i'm
prisonment.
THIS record, therefore, presents for
our consideration the single question,
whether fine Imposed Tor 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
deliberately argued at the January term
of this Court, in the case OF Tyler.
Sergeant. vs.. Taylor, Auditor" That
case was argued upon a petition for a
writ of mandamxs to this Court to COM
pei 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 a
fine imposed on one Mayor for c,imi-
nal 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 it vas, un-
der the law, TO receive fines collected
BY the City Sergeant, and declaring that
this Court could only exercise its eX-
traordinary jurisdiction by way of man
damus to compel public officer to dis
charge duty which the law imposed on
han, and not on another. And mas
much as the City Treasurer, and not the
Auditor OF Pablo Accounts, was the
public officer whose duty it was to re-
ceive all fines collected by the City
Sergeant, the rule was discharged and
the case dismissed without deciding the
question on its merits.
In that case il was said. aud is here
repeated: This Court is always ready
and willing 10 decline, to the best Of its
ability, all questions. however impOr-
lant or difficult, or however they may
affect public or private interests, which
are properly brought before it, no mat
ter how great or iar-reaching may be
the responsibilities it must assume in
such decision. But the Court is not
willing, nor is it any part OF its judicial
functions. 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, VS.. 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 aces arise
properly upon the records in this case,
and the court is now prepared to meet
the question aud assume all the respon-
sbihtes which may attach to liz decis-
ion, however 1t may affect individual or
public rights, private or political ques-
tons.
But the question we have to deter
mine (hOweyer it is sought to be con-
nected with questions which arc the
subject, unhappily, ofpolitical agitatiOn)
IS purely legal question, to be deter
mined upon well-defned legal princi-
pies, and the rules of construction uni
versally recognized as applicable to tile
statute law. 1t all depends upon the
true construction to be given to the I'd
section Of the act approved March 80,
1871. entitled AN 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 nterest-certi6cate herereto-
fore issued by this State may
fund two thirds Of the amount Of the
same in s:X-percentum cou-
pons or registered bonds Of this State
&c., contains the following provision /:
The bonds shall be made payable 10 /
order or bearer and the coupons to |
bearer at the Treasury Of the State, and |
bonds payable to order may be eXchang-
ed for bonds payable to bearer, and |
registered bonds may be exchanged Cor
coupon bonds, or rice gerSo. at the OPP
ion of the holder. The coupons shall
be payable semi-annually and receiya-