The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1886-07-22
The Dplanav Case.

ting. Inc jury Drougnt III Vefolct Vi
49,, - the actual loss sustained by Du-
aney il the levy and sale of his sto ok for
taxes, for which he had rendered coupons.
After the evidence was concluded and be-
fore argument was commenced, the court
submitted to the jury the following in
structions
Ii the jury end from the evidence that
the plaintiff in this action, being a citizen
Of Virginia WAS indebted to the State in
the sum Of S235 for taxes due upon his
PROPERTY owned by him IL Shenandoah
county, III that State. and that in payment
thereof he rendered to KoontZ, the treas
urer Of the said county entitled to 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 Thereon, and
that Notwithstanding such tender, the de-
PENDANT Koontz, levied upon the properly
of the plaintiff, advertised and sold the
same and so collected the tax then the
said Koontz was trespasser and is liable
in damages to the said plalntlH 1or MS
trespaSs.
And if the Jury find from the evidence
in the cause that the other defendants 10
this action, or either OF them, ADVISED ana
counseled the said Koontz to commit the
trespass above described by advising MIN
not to receive the said coupons, but to
make the said levy, with promise of in
Identification if he were muicted IN DAM
ages for his conduct, knowing the assls-
lance of counsel to defend him, then the
said defendants 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 for the pay
ment Of taxes, whether received or not.
the taxes are paid, any levy upon the prop
| erty of the taxpayer after such tender IS a
trespass (any State law to the contrary
Notwithstanding for which damages are
recoverable and if the said levy IS made
! with knowledge at the time that 1T is H.
| legal. while the ax-payer 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 malicious and
are not confined to giving actual damages,
but may give punitive or exemplary DAM
| ages. as they may find the facts to be.
Mr.. Dulaney owed the State of Vir-
ginia taxes to the amount of 1926, for
| which he rendered tax-receivable coupons.
| The Treasurer of Shenandoah county,
| Mr.. Koontz, under instructions of the
State Board of Indemnity, refused to
receive them, and proceeded to levy
upon Dulaney's property and sell it,
realizing an amount sufficient to pay the
tax.
MI. Dulaney brought suit against the
State, practically though nonel,aally against
the State officers constituting the State
Board of Indemnity, laying his damages
at $4,000 The jury gave him verdict
| for $252. 70. the amount OF the tax levied
and interest. The object Of the suit was to
establish the right of the taxpayer, under
| the decision of the United States Supreme
| Court, to pay his taxes in coupons, and
when the State collecting officer refuses to
receive the coupons, then the taxes to be
regarded as settled. This was the result
| of the case. Duaney is relieved from the
payment of the taxes in question, the
| State is taxed with the costs of the suit.
including all the processes issued, and the
people have to bear them, because OF a
futile effort Of a State officer, acting un-
der multiplying act of the Virginia Leg
islature, toresist decree of the Supreme
| Court of the United States.
| In referring to cases where the tax
payers avail themselves of the law OF the
| land to pay their taxes in coupons, tax
paying agent provided by Democratic
| Legislature of this State, pathetic appeals
are made by Democratic papers to pro-
| tect the ''old mother from the effects OF
Democratic legislation. What constitutes
the ''old mother or the State The peo'
pie who inhabit the territory embraced IN
the State limits. Not the people who
originally founded the Commonwealth
and made it's reputation for public faith
That is thing of the past, historical
"reminiscences. The present people are the
for State now. They are alone responsible
the present condition of things, and what
ever of discredit that rest upon the '0lo
mother by reason of recent legislation
designed to nullify the constitution and
laws of the country. There is no Apo
siteness, therefore, in the appeal to defend
the reputation of the State, as it was
made by the forefathers. That will take
care Of itself. To refer to it, is only to
institute contrast between the men OF
the past and the men of the present who
made and make up the State. Hence these
appeals are purely confession that the
present people or majority OF them, have
been guilty of compromising the name
and fame given to Virginia by those who
went before them, and is tantamount to
an invocation to save themselves from the
effects of their own folly and infidelity to
public trust. It comes with bad grace
| from the men who have brought the Com
monwealth to her present hum iliating po-
sition, to address appeals to anybody te
save the reputation of the State, so long
as they are in power, and acting under the
legislation of their own creation. They
have brought shame upon Virginia-have
compromised her fair name-and all, that
partizanism may be entrenched in positions
of emolument and honor, regardless OF
law, of past renown, or future reputation
and prosperity.