Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-06-19
COUPON LITIGATION.
MANY INTERESTING POINTS ARGUED
AND SOME DECIDED.
rveSty-one Petitions Dfsns4ssed - Il Q
SCHOOL, and Liquor-rasos Bearing
Upon Coupons.
.,,.,,.oo,a.,c. o, tho n,cAmeud Dispatch,


Prrrnssuno. Va. June IS. 1890.
Tho Circuit Court Of Petersburg met To-
1.x Pursuant 20 adiournment-Judgc Is. A.
Hancock presiding. The coupon cases en-
s,acad the attention Of the Court the entire
Sav Tho only case tried by Jury was
Claiborne rs the Commonwealth ~ VIII VIII
a verdict was rendered Tor inc p .ain.in.
The Commonwealth by her htVoInoys
moved the Court 70 dismiss twenty-one OF
Tho cases because the petitions had peeh
hToneht and fled in the partnership name
.;,hout rccitipc the individual names Oh
ihe firm. The Court sustained the inot,on
md dismissed the petitions, holding that
In any action ut law partnership can only
she by the individual names OF the part
uers and not by the partnership nain0 0"'''
QUESTION on AGENCY.
In The case Of T. J. Collins. Agent, U.s. tne
rornmonwealth the defendant hicd pea
s~ttine forth that Collins was agent ior
lanes ID Alton and praying that the peu-
ION no dismissed. To this plea the plain
t;e rcplied that the license was issued 70
him as r. J. Collins. agent, and that ne
Eas doing business as Il. j. Collins, AGENT.
The Court refused 10 dismiss the peliiion
and said the question OF agehcF Iaia, u5er
the nlea mustbe decided by the Jury amer
an instruction from the Court that II Sol-
Iins was dong business in the name on 4;
/ Collins agent. 81 " then they must Dhu
for him. the word agent being only ue-
scription Of the person; but II ne Wa
really the agent of D'Alton theh ne o"eu
the State no taxes and had no flgnV 20
tender coupons therefor ana 'no jury '"1''
find for the state.
THE SCHOOL AND IIQUoB-TAXEs.
rho MOS, imnortant and interesting
oues,ions were discussed and argued at
lengtb in those cases in which the liquor
license taxes and schOol-taXeS were III
Nv Gujgon. for the taxpayer. contended
that the recent opinion of the Onlteu states
Supreme Court in the coupon cases nau no
bearing whatever upon the question ~
issue that the Supreme Court had only
decided that the State might pass law
prohibiting the payment of such taxes III
commons. He insisted that no such law hau
been enacted by the Legislature. A.
on the contrary, he quoted from me
chapter Of the Code OF VIRGINIA ~ reI'tIon
10 the tender and yerifcatiOn OF coupons
10 show that the State had expressly
authorized tho payment of these taxes III
The language Of the law, he says. is that
sny fdy-D0yer may pay his tax IN money
70 the treasurer and at the same Tune ue-
liver 10 said treasurer coupons Tor verlnca-
tion and IL these coupons are found TO be
genuine. then the money shall be refunded
70 the taxpayer He claimed that tins
statute gave any taxpayer the right TO paw
oRtnyes. whether for school. or liquor-ilcense
in coupons. and that until this law was re-
pealed the decision of the supreme court
had no application in such cases.
THR oTHER SIDE.
Judge Mann and Mr.. Mullen. for the
State. strenuously maintained that MI.
Guicon had entirely msconstrued the
scote Of the supreme Courts decision.
They argued that the effect of that deci;
sion was TO declare that school-taxes ana
taxes for the sale of liquor were not en-
braced in the contract which the State
made with her creditors by the funding
hin of 1871. and that the Legislature could
not bind the State by any contract IN re-
ference thereto.
The argument Of these interesting CUES
tions consumed the greater part OF the
day and was listened to with great interest
py the lawyers of the city. Counsel on
both sides presented their respective views
with great force and clearness The Judge
after patiently listening to the argument
took the papers and reserved his decision
until Monday next. The court then adj
iourned until that day TO enable the Hust;
ipps Court to dispose of its criminal
docket. This action is rendered necessary
because there is only one room provided
for these two courts.