Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-14
Supreme Court of the Un,ted states.
No. l0l0.-OCToBER TERN, 1885.
William l.. Royal, Plaintiff in Error, !
rs. :
The State of Virginia. J

STATEMENT.
The plaintiff in error was convicted,
=" the Hastings Court Of the City Of
klcL.1oLl, OF thh2 misdemeanOr under
the laws of Virginia OF practicing law
as lawyer without having first obtain
ed license so to do from the Commits
sioner of the Revenue.
To the information the plaintiff in
error filed the following plea:
And for a plea in this behalf the said
William l.. Royal comes and says that he
is an attorney at law, duly licensed and
qualNed 10 practice law in the courts OF the
state OF Virginia under the laws Of said
State. and that he has been such for more
than five years; that on the LIST day OF May,
1854. he paid To Samuel &. Greenhow. who
Is the Treasurer OF the city Of Richmond.
Va. S25.75, and received from him and the
Commissioner of the Revenue reVenue-li-
cenSe as lawyer for one year from that
date; that he has not practiced his profeS-
sion as a lawyer in the courts OF said State
between the LIST day OF May, 1855. and the
nth day Of July. 1855 that on the 18th day
ofJuly 1855. he rendered 10 Seaton q. Tins
ley. who is the deputy for samuel &. Green
how. one coupon for SIS and $40 In United
states Treasury notes. in payment OF his
license. tax as an attorney at law for the
silver coin for the fee Of the Commissioners
Of the Revenue; that said coupon was cut
from a bond issued by the State OF Virginia
under the provisions of an act of the Cen
eral Assembly. approved March so 1871.
entitled An act 10 provide for the funding
and payment OF the public debt; that IL
was overdue and past maturity, and bore
upon its face the contract OF the
State OF Virginia that IL should be
received in payment OF all taxes,
debts. demands. and dues due TO the
said state that when he made said
tender he demanded OF said Greenhow
certificate in writing stating that he had
deposited with him said coupon and money,
but the said GTecnhow. by his said deputy.
refused 10 receive said coupon and money
for any purpose whatever, and refused To
give him said certificate or any other GER
tifcate that he refused 10 receive said cou-
pom and money. because an act OF the Cen
eral Assembly OF the state OF Virginia APP
proved February z, 1854, forbade him 10
receive said license-taX in coupons. and
because the 18th section Of an act Of the
General Assembly of said state. approved
March 10, 1854. provides that all License
taxes shall be paid in current money OF the
United States. and not in coupons: that
thereupon the defendant made the
AFFIDAVIT hereto attached. marked A.
and presented ii 10 X Il. Muntord, who is
the Commissioner of the Revenue for the
city Of Richmond and demanded of him
revenue license as an attorney at law, and
at the same time he presented TO the said
Mupford the pa per hereto attached. marked
H.. and at the same time he offered 10 pay
the said MunfOrd any aud all fees that he
was entitled 10 receive before issuing said
license but the said Munford refused to
issue TO defendant a license rs an attorney
al law; that thereafter defendant accepted
the employment Of a client who was being
prosecuted for a misdemeanor in this hon
oIable court. and assisted in his defence,
and thus practiced his profession as a law.
yer without revenue license. but said
professional act was done atter DEFENDANT
had made the efforts hereinbefore described
10 obtain a revenue license, and this he Is
ready 10 verify
The affidavit referred to in the plea
set forth the facts Of the tender, and
the paper marked "B" was the usual
form of an application for revenue
license.
To this plea the Commonwealth filed
general demurrer, which was sus-
tanned by the court, on the ground that
the defendant had no right to practice
his profession as an attorney at law
after the tender Of the coupons and
money, as described in the plea, with
out first having obtained license
therefor. The defendant then pleaded
not guilty, and trial was had, result
irg in verdict finding the defendant
guilty and assessing his fine at thirty
dollars.
During the progress of the trial
bill Of exceptions was duly taken, as
follows:
"Be IL remembered that on the trial OF
this cause the same was submitted 10 the
jury upon the following agreed statement Of
facts, to.wit:
"It is admitted as evidence In the case OF
Royal did not practice his profession as
attorney at law between May 1, 1888. and
July IL. 1855, and that ON the latter day he
rendered TO the Treasurer OF the city OF
Richmond q coupon issued by the state OF
Virginia under the provisions OF the act OF
March 80, 1871, for the sum OF SIS aud
SlO.75. lawful money OF the United States.
in payment OF his license tax for
ne Of e pyops oeer tsas sad nus
pom was receivable in payment OF all taxes
dents. aud demands due said state: that
said tender was refused; that thereupon the
defendant practiced his profession as an
attorney after said tender, but not before,
without revenue license, but the said de.
PENDANT has for more than 1--WE years been
duly licensed 10 praetice law under the
laws Of Virginia. II Is further agreed that
lie license. tax on tue defendant es an at
io5ney at law is twenty five dollars, (s25.)
"JLerenpon The defendant moved the
Court 10 instruct the jury AZ follows:
aIIs the Jury believe nom the evidence
that the defendant did mol practice his pro-
fefsion of attorney At law between the lst
Cav on May, 1885. and the nth day OF July,
lsSg' and that on the tlth day OF July, 1859,
be rendered 10 the Treasurer OF the city OF
u, ~ !. ~ Vl.ui In under the provisions Of the
ACT az akss rnbly approved March 30, 1871,
which eoupor, by provisions of said act:
~ss rtcesyabfc Tor All taxee. dehts. ana
demands due said state, and yen GER
ri usonnx a. ne Units0 Hfetea Il
rsynient III ~ ~ ~ *l&x. which ~ ~ !