Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-17
NOT A BIG FORTUNE.
INSTEAD OF 500, 900 DuLAHEY GETS
s25272 DAMAGES.
Some OF the Details Of the Trial = ln'
structions Proposed and Those
Given, &c.

| aSCenued the DeuCu W cVhs""N S"S
| trial, which had begun the day before, Of
the case OF II. Grafton Dulaney Us. The
State Board Of Indemnity and George
w. Koontz, treasurer Of Shenandoah
county, This was an action brought to
| recover 100000 damages for alleged
trespsss, tho defendant treasurer, under
directions Of Auditor Marye endorsed
by the Board Of Indemnity, having
levied on and sold the property Of the
plaintiff, he having rendered coupons in
the payment Of his taxes, and they
having been refused except for yeriica-
| ton.
| THE WITNESSES.
Mr. Koontz, who was on the witness
stand at the hour Of adjournment
Thursday, being few minutes late, was
sent for and came into court about 1920,
followed by Mr. Tucker. The other wit
nesses examined in the case we're Audi-
tor Marye, Second-Auditor Ruffin, Sec
retary. Of the e-Commonwealt Flournoy,
| Treasurer A. w. Harman, Attorney
General Ayers mot sworn), Mr.. Carter,
agent for Dulaney, and Colonel Her.
bert, Mr.. Dnlaney's financial agent
and attorney.
The State officers only testified as to
issuing the circular to the treasurers
giving them instructions as to how to
proceed under the law Of the State,
and particularly the one creating the
Board Of Indemnity. The other wit
nesses only gave history Of the
transaction between them and Koontz,
which agreed with that given by the
latter, except that Mr.. Carter said
when he rendered the coupons to Mr..
Kooptz the latter did not offer to
take them for verfcation that be only
said no could not accept the coupons.
WHAT MR.. ROYALL WANTED.
Mr.. Royal offered the following in
structions to the jury
II the jury believe from the evidence
that the plaintiff rendered to the de-
fendant Koontz coupons cut from the
bonds issued by the State Of Virginia,
which were receivable in payment Of
taxes due to her, in payment of his
taxes, and that the defendant KOontz
refused to receive them; aud thereafter
the plaintiff, still being willing and
ready 10 pay his taxes with said cou-
pons, levied on and sold the plaintiffs
property, then they are instructed that
in so doing the defendant was naked
trespasser and liable to the plain
tiff in damages. And if they believe
further that the defendant Marye as
Auditor, issued instructions to the de-
fendant Koontz to levy on and sell the
plaintiff S property notwithstanding
said tender, they are instructed that the
said Marye is liable to the plaintiff as a
Joint tresspasser and if they believe
that the other defendants as members
of the States Indemnity Board signed
said instructions Of said Auditor for the
purpose Of giving an assurance to the
defendant Koontz that the said Board Of
Indemnity would indemnify him
from al pecuniary loss il he
would make said levy and sale not
wi,hstanding said tender, and that they
signed said instructions for the purpose
Of encouraging said Koontz to make said
levy and sale notwithstanding said tend
er, ard that they knew that it was a
naked trespass for said Koontz to make
said levy and sale Notwithstanding said
tender, then each and every one OF
said Board Of Indemnity signing said
instructions is liable to the plaintiff
ss q Joint trespasser. And if they be-
lieye from the evidence that the eefend-
ants knew that it was trespass to levy
on and sell the plaintiffs property after
said tender, and that it was a simple de-
fance Of the law to make said levy and
sale after said tender, and that the de-
fendant Koontz made said levy and sale,
and the other defendants aided and en-
couraged him to make said levy and
sale notwithstanding said tender, and
that they made the same for the
purpose Of setting law at defiance,
they are instructed that it is their
duty to find verdict for
exemplary and punitive damages in
q sum which in their judgment will be
large enough TO deter the defendant
Ko0ntz from making another such levy
and sale Of the plaintiff S property, aud
will deter the other defendants, as men,
bers of said Board Of Indemnity, from
giving assurance to the said Koontz
that they will indemnify him from Pc
cuniary loss from the funds of tho
State if he shall again make similar
levy on and sale of the property of the
plaintiff.
ANOTHER WISH OF HIS.
Mr.. Royal also submitted the follow
ing:
If the jury believe from the evidence
that the plaintiff offered to pay his
taxes with coupons cut from bonds
issued by the State, and that the de.
fendant Koontz refused them and
levied on and sold eight head Of the
plaintiffs cattle, then they are in
structed that the said Koontz was
guilty of q naked, unjustifable tres
pass in making said levy and sale, for
which the plaintiff is entitled to re-
cover damages. And if they be-
lieve from the evidence that the
defendant Koontz knew that it
was q violation of the law for him
to make said levy and sale, and that
he made the same in defiance Of the
law, then they are instructed that he is
liable to exemplary and punitive dam
ages, and that il is their duty to find o
verdict for q sum large enough to deter
the defendant Koontz from committing
. similar unjustifable trespass, and
that will deter the defendant Marye
from instructing him to make any simi-
lar levy, and that will deter the mem-
bers Of the Board o! Indemnity from
encouraging any similar leyies and
sales.
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT.
Attorney-General Ayers objected to
both OF these instructions, and Judge
Bond for the court, after reading them,
rejected them both, and read the fol.
| lowing, which he had already prepared
nxl ,,, hand