Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-09
COUPONS, AGAIN.
IEP0RTANT CASE TRIED IN TIE
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
The Jury in the Case of Ford vs.
Taylor Brings in q Verdict
for $3.50.

taylor Brings IN vekuiot
for $3.50.
An nimportantcoupon case was decided
in the United States Circuit Court rtyester.
day--Judges Hughes and Bood pre-
siding-that Of A. j. Ford, proprietor
Of Ford's Hotel, rs. William Taylor.
treasurer of Henrico county. Ford
owed the State s40.s2 on account Of
taxes for the year 1883. He rendered
payment Of it in the States coupons,
which the treasurer, William Taylor,
refused to receive, after which Taylor
levied on Ford's mule and sold it at
public auction. Ford was out Of the use
Of the mule for about thirty days, and
when it was sold at auction he became
the purchaser at esq. Ford then brought
suit in the United States Circuit Court
for 81 900 damages.
THE JURY QUESTIONED.
When the case was called in this
court yesterday morning Mr.. Royal, of
counsel for the plaintiff, said: This is
. suit brought by taxpayer of this
State against county treasurer for
damages for an alleged trespass COM
mifted by the treasurer in this that it
is alleged that he levied on and seized
ard sold the taxpayers property to
cofipel him to pay his taxes in money
after the taxpayer had offered to pay
them with the States tax.receivable
coupons, the collector having acted un-
der color Of 0 State law which is al
legged to be unconstitutional and void.
Mr.. Royal requested that the ju-
rors should be examined on their
roire dire, and proceeded to inter-
rogate them, asking each juror the
following questions : Have you formed
or expressed any opinion in relation to
such a case? Have you any prejudice
for or against either party in such
case? If the plaintiff in such a case
should establish by lawful evidence his
right to recover damages for such a
trespass, have you such preconceived
opinion, political or other, as would
hinder you from finding verdict for
adequate damages according to law?
Would you be willing as juryman in
such case to find your verdict upon
the facts proved in accordance with
such instructions without fear, favor,
or affection?
THE JURORS OATH.
You will well and truly try the issue
Joined between the plaintiff and de-
fendant and true verdict render ac-
cordipg TO the evidence. Are you
willing to render such verdict upon the
facts presented in obedience to the in
structlons of the Court as to the law
applicable to the caseS
Attorney-General Ayers objected to
this mode Of trial, but the objections
were overruled by the Court and Or
dered to be noted
THE JURY.
The gentlemen who answered these
questions satisfactorily and were re-
tanned as jurymen were +. P. Murphy,
Thomas Curtis, Otto Morgenstern,
James Bagnall, William G. Barker, G.
A. Davenport, Charles f. Wortham,
Jr., O. W. Crew, George W. Conrad,
Julian Berkeley, Gardner Thompson,
and Samuel b. Clarkson.
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
After the testimony was concluded
the Court delivered the following in.
stryctioEs to the jury:
From the evidence in this case it ap-
pears that the plaintiff was indebted to
the State for taxes in the amount Of
s40.S2, for which he rendered to the
defendant, the treasurer Of Henrico
county, q coupon of the State receivable
for public taxes in the amount
of $50, and sl0.S2 in coin,
which amounts the treasurer, the
defendant in this action, re-
fused to receive in payment because he
was of opinion he was not authorized
so to do by the Law Of Virginia respect
ing such coupon. 1t appears further
from the evidence on both sides that the
treasurer subsequently Uhe taxes not
being paid in coin) levied therefor upon
the property Of plaintiff, and sold the
same, under the circumstances detailed
by the witnesses, at public auction.
Under this state Of facts the Court
instructs you, gentlemen Of the jury.
that the treasurer was in error as to his
duty respecting the receipt of the tax
receivable coupon rendered by the
plaintiff, and that he was bound to re-
ceive it in payment Of the plaintiffs
taxes as far as its face value
would go; the Supreme Court Of the
United States having decided that the
tender of such coupon was payment to
the amount of its face value, and his
levy after such tender was trespass
on the part Of the treasurer, for which
the plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages, and il the jury find from the
evidence that the levy and sale of fplain-
tiff IS property was accompanied by any
unnecessary hardship, indignity, or in
jury to plaintiff, then he is entitled to ex-
emplary damages, and if not so accom-
panied he is entitled to his actual dam
ages only. And it is proper for the
jury to take into consideration the act
Of Assembly Of Virginia, approved
March "a, 1856, which provides for the
indemnity of all tax-collecting officers
for their losses and expenses incurred
in collecting or attempting to enforce
or settle taxes due the Commonwealth.
THE VERDICT.
The case was argued by Messrs.
William L. Royall and John Lyon for
the plaintiff and Attorney General Ru-
fus A. Ayers for the Commonwealth.
The jury retired, and in few minutes
brought in the following verdict :
=" We, the jury, find for the plaintiff
and assess the actual damage at $3.50"
Mr.. Ayers moved the Court to dis
miss the suit and not enter judgment,
because the suit did not really and SUBJ
stantially involve dispute or con-
troversy properly within the jurisdic-
ton of the court, the jury having re-
turned q verdict for less than $500.