Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-02
THE COUPON CASES.
TIE COURT or APPEALS on
VIRGINIA REVERSED.

bfdGlNlA AbF 1aoEDs
The. Supreme Court OF the Uaitsd States
Aaainst the s,gte-Abstsact OF Points De.
cided. 80
From our Regular Correspondent
WASHINGTON, February 1.-The
decision OF the Supreme Court to-
day In the four coupon cases from
Virginia was great surprise to mem
bers Of the bar from Virginia who were
present. The court was unanimous in
its opinion in favor Of the bondholders
in each case. The following is con-
else statement Of the points that were
decided:
The case Of Barry rs. Edmunds was
this: Barry owed the State $50 of
taxes, for which he rendered coupons
in pay ment. The Treasurer refused to
receive them, and levied on one cf
Barry's horses, worth sl25. aud sold
it. Barry sued him in the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the East
ern district OF Virginia for a trespass
in making this levy, laying his
damage at $4,000. Judge Bond held
that on this case Barry could not re-
cover as much as S., and, therefore,
that the Circuit Court was without
jurisdiction, and be dismissed the case
for want Of jurisdiction. The Supreme
Court reverses Bonds judgment, hold.
ing that the jury in oil such cases are
authorized to give punitive damages in
any amount they may see fit, aud,
therefore, that much more than $500
is involved.
The case Of William L. Royal rs.
The State Of Virginia was this Royal
rendered coupons in payment Of his
license-tax as a lawyer, which the Of.
ficers refused to receive, because the
Virginia law forbids them to receive
coupons for license-taxes. Royal went
on practicing his profession without a
license. For this he was indicted, tried,
convicted, and fined. The Supreme Court
reverses the decision Of the Virginia
court, holding that licenses are taxes,
and can be paid with coupons as well
as other taxes that after person de-
string to do business tenders coupons
for his license he can 20 on and do bust
ness without his license if the officers
will not give it to him.
In the Sands case they hold that the
officers can be made to accept coupons
for Identification for license-taxes if the
party owing license-tax desires to
proceed in that way.
In Chafiin rs. Taylor, Chaflin had
rendered coupons for his taxes, which
being refused, Taylor, the collector,
levied on Chaffin's property. Chsfiin
sued Taylor for trespass in the Circuit
Court of Henrico county. Taylor
pleaded that the laws of Virginia for
babe him to receive the coupons and
required him to levy Notwithstanding
the tender. and Judge Wexford held
this a good defence. The Supreme
Court last spring reversed Judge Well
ford about this and ordered him to have
Cbafiin's damages assessed by jury.
When the case came on for trial
again before Judge Wexford he
allowed Taylor to come forward
with a new rejoinder, in which
be averred that ChafIin did not pay his
taxes in money at the time he rendered
his coupons. and did not offer them to
him for Identification and veri6cation,
as the act of January 4, 1882, required !;
that he would have taken them for
identification and verifcation if Chaflin
would have paid his money and given
them to him for that purpose. Chaihn
objected to Taylor's being allowed to
file. this rejoipder upon the ground
that the Supreme Court had al
ready held that it was no defence.
But Judge Wexford allowed him
to file it s1d again put Chatiin out OF
court. Chafiin appealed to the Su-
preme Court again, which now holds
that Taylor's rejoinder presents no de-
fence for his trespass; that when the
case went back to Judge Wexford he
should have given judgment in favor
of Chaffin. and should have summoned
a Jury to assess his damages; and il
now commands him to give judgment
for Chaffin and have his damages as
sessed by jury.
synopsis or the Decisions.
lBy Associated Press.l
WASHINGTON, February 1.-The
Supreme Court of the United States to-
day rendered the following decisions
No. 10lO-William L. Royal against
the State of Virginia, in error to the
Supreme Court Of Virginia.
The plaintiff was convicted in
the Hastings court of Richmond
of practiciDg law without license
To the information he filed a plea
setting forth that he had rendered tC
the Deputy Treasurer of Richmond one
coupon for SIS and $40 in United States
Treasury notes in payment of his license
tax that when he made said tender ht
demanded certificate, stating that hi
had deposited said coupon and money
but the Deputy Treasurer refused to give
him the certificate, because the act Of
February 7. 1884, forbade him to re-
ceive said license.tax in coupons
and because the act Of March l6, 1884
provides that all license-taxes shall bt
| paid in current money of the United
States and not in coupons; that he
thereupon made an affidavit setting
| forth these facts and presented it to thu
Commissioner Of the Revenue of Rich
mond, and demanded Of him license
but the Commissioner refused to issue
| to him the license, and that he then &C
cepted employment from a client aud
practiced his profession. To his plea
the Commonwealth filed a general de
murrer, which was sustained by the
court below on the ground that Royal
had no right to practice his profession
after the tender Of the coupon without
first having obtained license. Royal
then pie aded not guilty and trial wa
had, resulting in verdict finding hin
guilty az; assessing his fine at $50
The court below in rendering its judg
ment held that section sc Of chapter 81
of the Code of Virginia Of 1873, ant
the acts of February 7, 1884, and o
| axy IE 1904 80 MT ranuDpapt 4,