Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1886-07-23
THE DULANY CASE.

The case of Ii. G.. Dulany vs.. the
State Board Of Indemnity aud the
Treasurer of Shenandoah county,
was concluded in the United States
Circuit Court in Richmond, Judges
Bond and Hughes, the jury render
ing verdict Of 1922, the actual
loss sustained by Mr.. Dulany in
the levy and sale Of his stock.
After the evidence was concluded
and before argument was begun
the court submitted the following
instructions to the jury:
If the jury find from the evil
dence that the plaintiff in this ac.
ton, being a citizen Of Virginia
was intebted to the State in the
sum Of S23j for taxes due upon the
property owned by him in Shenan-
doah county, in that State, and
that in payment thereof he tender
ed to KOOntz, the treasurer of the
said county entitled 10 receive the
same, coupons of the bonds of the
State of Virginia receivable for
/ public taxes, and that said kOOntz
treasurer, refused TO receive the
same IN payment thereof, and that
Notwithstanding such tender, the
defendant, KOOntz, levied upon the
property Of the plaintiff, advertised
and sold the same and so collected
the tax then the said Koontz was
a trespasser and is liable in dam.
ages to the said plaintiff for his
/ trespaSs.
And if the jury find from the
evidence in the cause that the other
defendants to this action, or either
of them, advised and cOunselled the
said KOontz to commit the trespass
above described by advising him
not to receive the said coupons but
to make the said levy, with prom
Use of indemnilicatiOn if he were
mulcted IN damages for his conduct
knowing the assistance OF counsel
to defend him, then the said defen-
dants are jointly liable with koontz,
the treasurer, for the trespass al
legged and the jury may find such
of the defendants guilty or not
guilty as they may find they did or
did not so advise, counsel and abet
the aforementioned trespass.
And the jury are instructed that
it is the law of the land that, upon
the tender of the taX-receivable
coupons tor the payment of taxes
whether received or not, the taxes
are paid and any levy upon the
property of the taxpayer after
such tender is a trespasS (any
State law to the contrary nOtwith-
standing), for which damages are
recoverable and If the said levy is
made with knowledge at the time
that it is illegal, while the taX.pay
er demonstrates that it is illegal
and claims the protection of the
law of the land, then the jury may
find that the said levy was mali.
cious and are not confined to giving
actual damages, but may give punt
tive or exemplary damages, as they
may find the facts to be.
During the argument, and as Mr..
Royal was proceeding to attack
the argument advanced by the At
torncy.General, an exciting col
loquy occurred. Mr.. Royal was
likening the doctrine advanced by
Attorney.General Ayers to that
advocated by Dennis Kearney and
Spies, the Chicago anarchist, when
the Attorney. General arose and
said "Mr. Royal, | cannot per
nit you to cast such a reflection as
that, or | cannot permit without
protest"
Mr.. Royal said 81 do not pro
pose to say anything disagreeablc
to you, but | do intend to attack
the doctrine laid down by YOU yes
terday as being identical in every
respect to the doctrine Of Herr
Most and of the Chicago anarch-
lists, and ! do it with the most pro
found respect"
Mr.. Royal then dwelt upon the
remark made by the Attorney
General that "NIr. Dulany was a
.million-fve-hundred thousand
dollar man. and held that the con
clusion to be drawn from the re-
marks Of the Attorney was that "a
rich man is not to have the protec
ton Of the law"
The AttOrney.General again arose
and said 'NOw, want TO say thai
you misconstrde that, said that
| that man was worth a great dea
of money, and that his credit could
not be affected. | said that the
Jury was bound to give him actual
damages
The colloquy here ended, an(
Mr.. Royal proceeded to argue The
legal points.