Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-16
DULANEY'S DAMAGES.
An EFFORT TO MAKE THE STATE PAY
FOR LEvYING ON NINE cows.
Ran. Tucker Of Counsel for the Common
wealth-Jury sworn Evidence
Commenced, &c.

/
The trial of an important coupon
case was begun in the United States
Circuit Court yesterday--Judges Hugh
L. Bond and Robert W. Hughes pre-
siding. 1t is the suit of Fl. Grafton
Dulaney rs. The Board OF Indemnity
and G.. W. Koontz, treasurer Of Shenan-
doah county, for sl00, 900 damages.
Soon after the adjournment Of the
Legislature at its last session . num-
Der of treasurers applied to Auditor
Msrye for instructions Is to how they
should proceed to collect taxes under
the law. The main trouble anticipated
was with the people who should try to
pay their dues in coupons.
Colonel Marye wrote and printed the
instructions directing how the trea-
surers should proceed in all cases in
which coupons should be rendered in
payment of taxes or licenses, and he
concluded by notice that if damages
should he sustained by any treasurer
as the result Of his attempting to col
lect taxes due the Commonwealth the
Board of indemnity, created by the act
Of February "a, 1886, would reimburse
the treasurer therefor in such sum as
they should think just and proper.
This Board of Indemnity consists OF
the Attorney.General, the Secretary Of
the Commonwealth, the Auditor of
Public Accounts, the Second Auditor,
and Treasurer, and its members signed
their approval Of the instructions given
by Colonel Marye.
Soon after these circulars were sent
out to the county treasurers Mr.. Duls-
ney, who is a very wealthy man, and
owns considerable property in Shenan-
doah county, rendered through his agent
coupons to the amount Of 1926 in pay
ment of the remainder Of his taxes due
the State, he having paid his school and
county taxes, amounting to about $500,
in money.
THE COUNSEL.
The counsel in the case are For the
plaintiff, Messrs. William L. Royal,
W. II. Sands, and A. b. Guigon. For
the defence, Attorney General Ayers,
on the part Of the State; Hon. j. Ran.
Tucker, employed by individual MEN,
bers OF the Board, and Hon. Henry c..
Allen, Of Shenandoah, employed by Mr..
koontZ.
MOTION TO CONTINUE.
When the case was called Mr.. Tucker
made q motion for q continuance until
after the adjournment of Congress 50 as
to give him an opportunity to more
thoroughly inform himself upon the
case at issue. lie said his services had
but recently been secured, and that the
case beng of more than ordinary i'm.
portance, he would like to have more
time for its consideration.
Judge Bond said that the Court
felt honored in having Mr.. Tuck
er here, but could not continue
the case because Mr.. fuckers eli
ents bad been slow in employing
additional counsel. The Judge said,
further, that he thought the case could
be tried in time for Mr.. Tucker to
leave on the evening train for Wash
ington.
AN ATTACHMENT ASKED FOR.
Juoge Bond then had the witnesses
called, and all of them answered to
their names except Second-Audit
Frank G.. Ruifin and Treasurer A. W.
Harmsn, Jr.
Mr.. Royal referred to the absence OF
these two gentlemen and asked to have
Deputy Marshal OVERLY examined as to
whether he had summoned them. The
officer mentioned, being sworn, said that
Nessrs. Ruffin and Uarman had been
summoned, and that Colonel RuiIin said
that there vas a statute Of which he
would take advantage.
Mr.. Royal asked for an attachment
for Mr.. Rufiin to bring him into
court.
Attorney-General Ayers opposed the
motion for an attachment. He cited
the Virginia statute prescribing how
the attendance of State officers must
be obtained, and argued that this court.
in administering the laws Of the State
of Virginia, must be guided by her
statute.
Judge Bond said be did not think the
law quoted applied to this case.
Mir. Royal renewed his request for
the attachment.
Judge Bond said that it would be
unnecessary, as the Attorney.General
had stated that he would have the wit
nesses in court if it were held that the
statute referred to did not apply to the
case.
The two witnesses soon came in.
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION.
Attorney. General Ayers offered a plea
to the jurisdiction Of the court, claim
ing that the parties, plaintiff and de-
fenGants, were all residents of the State
of Virginia that the cause Of action
did not arise under the Constitution
and laws of the United States that the
Circuit Court of Shenandoah county, con-
stitu,ed and organized under the Con-
stitution and laws Of Virginia, alone
had original jurisdiction to try the cause.
lie at the same time moved to dismiss
the case, because it did not really and
substantially involve q matter within
the jurisdiction Of the court under the
act of Congress, ard at the same time
demurIed TO the plaintiffs declaration
in each count thereof. lie stated that
this course was taken to facilitate the
argument Of points Of law arising in
the case.
Mr.. Royal, in reply to the Attorney
General, said that as far as the Attor-
. ney-General's objections to the declara'
tions was based on the fact that the
Board Of Indemnity was joined ia the
suit with Koontz, treasurer Of Shenan-
doah county, be was perfectly lnditfer-
ent as 70 whether that objection was
sustained or overruled; and if it should
be held that the Board was not liable.
still the Treasurer (Koontz) would never
theless be liable, and his liability wa
sufficient for Mr.. Royals purposes.
The speaker regarded this, however, a.
a very great hardship on Koontz, 1t the