Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-08-28
ARRAIGNING THE JUDGES.
nov THE sr4rG wAsrREaTED
Rsss.w Of nc Ceupoa Cases In the Hastings
c.sss 81 Eichmssa- cendges Of sa'sss
f.a,hssn aud Atkins.


c.su OF Richmesa- cendges Of sasss
fa,hsm aud Adkins.
PART III.
On the 23d OF July Judge Latham
took Judge Atkins's seat in the Hnst-
: ines Court Of this city. He had been
. m.re remarkable than Judge Atkins
for decisions In favor OF tax.receIvaoie
( coupons. At the June term OF nus
courtin Iynchburg evidence was ofsf-
) ed 10 prove that iorge5 coupons OF inc
issue Of 1856 had been imposed upon
she Second Auditor.
A RYMsR:SABLE RULING.
The forged we're exhibited in court
q, the side Of the genuine coupons
Which were attached 10 bond that
had been funded, and it was shown and
admitted that. in that case, the genuine
and counterfeit were indistinguishable
except by the production Of the bond.
II was next shown by the production OF
consol bond. which had been funded,
with all the coupons cut of, and then
professedly attached to the bond by
paste. that il was impossible to tell
whether those coupons were what had
been originally attached to. G., had
been an integral part of--the sheet on
which the bond was printed. Upon the
plaintiffs objection to the introduction
of this evidence, il was explained tina;
the object of the defence was to show the
character Of coupons in general, and the
ease with which all such securities could
be forged, and the ease, therefore. with
which spurious OF counterfeit tax-re-
ceivable coupons Of this sort IN issue
could be forged and imposed upon an
ordinary tax.collector and that a.
coupons had been stolen from the Trea-
surer's OF Second Auditors Office,
some with. and some without. the bonds
TO which they Belonged theft OF this
sort, to the extent Of some tnou-
sands. was the offence for which an
official in the basement Of the Capitol
in Governor Kemper's administration
had been sent to the peniteutiary-it
was proper TO let the jury understand
the difficulty Of proving that the cou-
pons in question were genuine, aud
thus give them an opportunity TO pro-
tect the State against wrong. But the
Judge unhesitatingly ruled out the tes-
timony, and instructed the jury to con-
slider only evidence touching the gen.
uineness Of the particular coupons be-
fore them: this was equal to instruct
ing them to find for the plaintiff.
JUDGE ATKINS AND HIS sUBsTI-
TUTE.
Judge Atkins must have known of
this when he invited Judge Latham to
relieve him; or certainly in the con-
ference which preceded bis going upon
the bench. presume it was the know
ledge of it that induced his selection.
As the only Judge in the State. except
himself. who had experience in these
cases. he must have known his views
before seating him as his substitute.
Bcre was grave improperly. Why
did he not select judge who had not
formed or expressed an opinion: Why:
Unless it was TO have the cases decided
for the bondholders? Why did he wish
TO hurry through these cases rather than
continue them until he could resume
his seat:
NOT AN EXPERT EXPERT.
Under Judge Latham the witnesses
were the same that had appeared in the
later cases before Judge Atkins, except
that the plaintiff introduced one, MIR.
Jourdsn Maury, young broker, who
testified that he was an expert in de-
tecting frauds in bank.notes, bonds,
coupons. and other public securities,
and proved that he was not, by declin-
ing to give an opinion on the bonds and
coupons which had been exhibited at
Lynchburg. and were again offered to
test his skill.
JURIEs WHICH COULD NOT AGREE.
In four successive cases the jurieS
disagreed leach one being successfully
discharged and a new one cmpanelled)
under the instructions of the judge that
if they did not believe the coupons
genuine they should find for the State.
and that if they were buying coupons
for themselves and would buy those in
the particular case they should find fer
the plaintiff. The Judge then ordered
fifth and special jury. e., jury Sc
lected with unusual care, and supposed
to be exceptionally intelligent that
jury having also disagreed--six to six.
CHANGE OF INSTRUCTIONS.
lie empanelled a sixth. and mended
his hold by instructing them that the
Commonwealth was estopped from
undertaking 20 show the impossibility
OF proving the genuineness Of tax
receivable coupons in any case, because
she had already, 10y act Of the Legisls-
ture, put that duty on the holder -;
and further that "she could not re-
quire him to produce the bond when
the coupon is made payable to the
bearer Of the coupon and not the bearer
Of the bond" These instructions e.
cluded the testimony Of the Common
wealth; and under them the jury
brought in verdiets for the plaintiffs as
fast as the cases could be given them.
A REMARKABLE PROCEDURE
GROUPING THE CASES.
Then. having become impatient, and
finding the jury trsetable, he proceeded
to try the cases in groMpS--that is, in
stead Of trying them one at time, as
the law requires in all cases, except
when, there being a common plaintiff
and defendant and the same facts and
principles involved, both parties con-
sent 10 the consolidstion--he swore the
jury in from five to sixty cases at once,
each case hdrsag a separate plaiatiG,
compelled them to hear the evidence in
all ct the same time, prevented them
from rendering verdict ia one until
all had been heard, and then made
them reader oil the verticts at the
same time. This unheard-of proceeding
he enforced against the expressed wishe.
OF all the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs, who knew that such a pro.
cseding could not stand the scrutiny oil
ahigher court, and sgainst tbe strong
and Indignant protest Of the counsel
tor.iae Commonwealth, who promptly
offered bill of exceptions. Rut to