Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-16

skothob toC I0o6uiNA ohA Wv
Of the Board of Indemnity and exceed
ed the limit Of . recovery Of the pro-
perty or the proceeds thereof lin other
words actual dsmages) 1t became
distinguished from the coupon cases
heretofore decided and fell squarely
within the rule laid down by the
Supreme Court of the United States in
the case of Louisiana rs. Jumel, l07
U. S., III, which held that "courts
cannot, when q State cannot be sued,
set up jurisdiction over the officers in
charge Of the public moneys, so as to
control them as against the political
power in their administration Of the
finances Of the State" and that for
this reason the suit should be
dismissed that the declaration and
each count thereof was defective be.
cause OF q misjoinder both Of parties
and causes of action; that the second
count was fatally defective as joining
trespass as charged upon the part Of
the officer with an action of trespass
on the case against the Board, and was
indefinite and entirely too general in its
averments to support a judgment.
DEMURRER OvERRULED.
The argument on the demurrer con-
cluded, Judges Bond and Hughes held
a short consultation on the bench, and
in few minutes Judge Bond read the
following opinion, which he prepared
after the argument was closed:
SO far as the first count is concern ed, II
alleges Joint trespsss on the part OF sli
the parties named as defendants, and IN
such form as would enable the plaintin 10
recover In this action II the facts stated De
proved TO the satisfaction or the ynfy. 80
IN as the demurrer Is concerned, II admits
the facts. and needs no consideration so far
as this count Is TO be affected. The plea To
the Jurisdiction sets forth, as We un.
derst6nd II, that the citizenship OF
the parties is In Virginia. and the
cause OF action does not arise
under the Constitution, because when the
coupons were presented the fax was paid.
and there could be no levy for That debi,
hut the Ordr0meR OF the declaration Is that
defendants paid no attention to that fact
and levied Notwithstanding the constitu-
tional payment OF the debt. The mere fact
that the declaration alleges that the cause
OF action arises under the Constitution Is
not sufficient TO give jurisdiction, but IL
must show facts that will enable the Court
10 see that 1t does SO arise. and thus we
think this declaration sufficiently does.
The difficulty suggested in regard TO ex'
emplary damages is not an open question
here, having been determined In the case
OF Barry rs. Edmonds by the Supreme
Court and the other objection that the
suit is really suit against the Common
wealth OF Virginia is finally settled In the
same case.
Asto the second count IL unquestionably
joins tTespass on the part OF koortz with
"a fTesrass on the case on the part or the
other defendants. AS we understand II
this cannot be done in Virginia under the
established rules Of pleading, and We sus
tain the demurrer to that count.
The Attorney General excepted to
the ruling Of the Court in sustaining the
first count in the declaration.
THE JURY QUESTIONED.
Mr.. Royal said he wished to ask
each Juror in examining him on his roir
dire the same questions which were
asked in the case of Ford rs. Taylor.
with the following addition
The plaintln seeks to go further than re-
covering actual damages that lie mas sus-
tained. lie seeks TO recover exemplary or
punitive damages, by which he means u
verdict for such large sum rs Will deter
these defendants from committing similar
supposed trespasses on him. Have you any
preconceived opinion, political or 0ther
that will hinder or prevent YOU nom nnd
ing a verdict for such exemplary or punl.
tive damages as will arrest these suppose
violations OF the law, II, on the proofs be-
fore you and under the law as the Court
NAY lay II down. 1t shall appear oyOu 10 be
a case proper for such verdict?
To this Mr.. Tucker objected, and it
was overruled by the Court, without
allowing argument.
Mr.. Ayers objected to the other
questions, as he had also done in the
Ford case, but the objections were over
ruled, and the following were asked
each Juror before his acceptance
This is an action brought by II. q. Dula.
ney against G.. w. kOontz, treasurer OF
Shenandoah county. Va; Morton Marye.
r. &, Ruflin, A. W. HarmaD, Ill. w. Flour
nOy. and X. A. Ayers for 500 coo damages
for an alleged unlawful and malicious levy
upon the property of Dulaney. The paintlif
claims that he will prove the following as
facts: J hat lie was assessed on his farm, IN
Shenandoah county, with S235 STATE taxes
for 1855; that lie rendered the defendant
kOOuiZ coupons OF 1De Sthlt 'ut Iiplu Hio
own boz ds, hich by her contract are TO be
received in payment OF all taxes due TO Der
in ray mcnt of what he owed: that Is 1ontZ
refused 10 receive them. and levied on anu
sold nine head Of his cattle.
iHeIe came the following, which was
ruled out by the Court: That prior TO the
levy the defendant Marye instructed
Ko0ntz To levy, and the other defendants
gave b IN an assurance that they would IN
demnify him agairst loss, as the state
Board of Indemnity, out OF the state
Treasury; that each defendant knew
when the levy was made that the law
forbade the levy. and made all persons
participating i'm II naked trespasSers; tnat
they made said levy for the purpose OF
defyipg the law and intimidating the
plaintiff and all other persons from using
coupons In payment OF taxes.l
Have you formed or expressed any oplp
ION IN rela ton 10 such case? Have you
any prejudice for or against either party IN
such n case? II the plaintiff In such case
should establish by lawful evidence his
right 10 recover damages for such sup
posed trespasS. have you such precOn-
ceivcd opinion. political or other. rs would
hinder you from finding verdict for ade-
auate damages according to Jaw? Would
you be willing as jury man I'D such case
10 fud your verdict upon the facts proved
I'm accordance with tine law as the Court
shalllay II down, without fear, favor, or 81
fection?
MIR. AYERs'S QUESTIONS.
The Attorney.G General asked each
l. 30 int 70.