Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-26
JUDGE B0ND---AGAIN.
ANOTHER INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
COUPON -CaUsHER" LAW
Ho Completely Ignores the Decision Of the
United States supreme
COlrt.

a hin oi Injunction was fled in the Cir
cult Court o' The United states for the East
crn District Of Virginia on Thursday IN the
name OF James 7. Cooper against Lewis T..
winston, Sheriff, upon which Judge Bond
has granted an injunction restraining Win
Ston from lcvymg executions I'm his hands in
about twenty care. whore judgments have
been oAtaintd against taxpayers under the
act known as the "cOupOn.cru-her." In
these cases the parties had tIst rendered cou-
pOns IN satisfaction Of judgments. which
were refused 10y the ShcriG; but they after
wards returned and withdrew their tenders.
stating tlst thcy ord not propose 10 rely upon
item, and authorizing the officer to levy, il
be so desired.
TEG IDEA.
The object oi Cooper seems 10 be 10 make
the direct question that all proceedings had
or taken by the Commonwealth after the
original tender were void and repugnant 10
ihe Constitution OF the United states; that
tbc orilinll tender, made 10 the treasurer,
when the taN-tckcts were first In his hands
ior collection, wls sufficient 20 protect the
ttX-Eaycr ainst an subsequent act, OF the
Commonwealth 10 obtaining judgments and
issuing executions thereon.
ALLEGATIONS.
The allegations of TIE bill are very similar
10 those contained IN The bin Of Cooper
against Ayers and Others for the violation OF
,hc injunction, in which the officers were
impri-ouc1 and subsequently, discharged on
% tobcds corpls OF the supreme Court Of the
United states.
In fact, lawyers competent 10 Judge are oi
opinion that there is no distinction in pun-
ciple between the two cases; that the action
of Judge Bond Is 4 wanion and Open viola.
tion Of law and 10 defiance u the judgment
Of the highest court in the land.
ADVICE TO THE SHERIFF..
The SbcrI has been advised by the
Board o; ludcmnityto pay no attention
whatever 90 the injunction process, and
II be acts upon thi, advice there VIII in AL
probability be a repetition Of the h05cos-
c0rpl, proceedings taken by Attorney.Gene.
raj Ayers and Others last year.
THE ATToRNEY-GESERAL' OPINION.
Atiorcy-Gencral Ayers upon being con-
suited Yesterday, was clearly Of opinion that
the Injunction orders granted are in viola
ton u The principle settled in CI-p0rfe
Ayer> and others, and unhe,ilajingly advised
me officer 10 proceed ard execute the pro-
cess Of the state court.
CAUSE or ACgIoN.
The cause ~ Che action arose in this way
About the % OF May there were placed in
the hands n sheriff Winston executions
from the City Circuit Court in thirty.one
coup0n-cru-hor cases. in which judgments
hld been awarded the Commonwealth. He
presented them 40 Mo,sr, James y. Cooper
sod william L. Royal. agruis Of the parties
defendant. and coupons were rendered TO
satisfy the iuf4me"t,.
ON Wednesday Mr. Cooper served on the
sheriff notice Withdrawing the tender in
nineteen cases. In this paper he says:
81 intcrpose no obstacle 10 your leYylng
the same If Won deem It TO be your duty 10 90
~o, though claim that 1t Will be trespass
for you 20 do so.'
,Iudec Rou1'~ order. copy Of which was |
al once served upon the sheriff restrains that |
ai,.r from Icyying upon tie said eNccu- |
tion,.
The motion fer an injunction I'm this case |
IS set down f1r hearing ln this clty on the |
fret day Of thr October term Of the court.
The order does not rc,er 10 the twelve /
ct,c- IN which the tender nps not been with /
drawn. in these the sheriff is now making /
his returns.
The sheriff viii consult counsel before de- |
Gliding what course To pursue.