The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-08
THAT PENALTY
MUST BE PAID.
Supreme Court UphoIds the Clerk of
the Hastings Court,
CASE OF BROWN VS.. CHRISTIAN.
In the Test Case Concerning the De-
linquent Land Tax Law the
Statute il Declared to BE
Constitutional.

4 test case has been made before the
Supreme Court OF Appeals OF certain pro-
visions OF the delinquent land tax statute
recently passed by the Legislature. and
that court declares that the law is con-
stitutional and that the delinquents must
pay the $ penalty as provided for In the
statute. thus UNFOLDING. Mr. Walter
Christian, Clerk of the Hastings Court,
in his conception of the law
Some weeks ago q representative Of the
firm of J. Thompson Brown * CO. ten
dered 10 the clerk OF the Hastings Court
a certain amount Of taxes due on prop
erty in Clay Ward for the year 1894.
FILED An APPLICATION.
The property had already been bought
in by the state. and under the act passed
by the Legislature on February II. 1895
in reference TO the redemption OF such
property and providing penalty Of s. to
be paid 10 whOms0ever shall make appli-
cation for the purchase Of the property
from the State. Mr.. r. 5. Valentine had
filed an application with Clerk Christian
for the purchase Of the property.
Mr. j. Thompson Brown rendered 10
the clerk the amount Of taxes and inter-
est. without either the cost for copies or
the penalty OF s. for the applicant.
MANDAAICS APPLIED FOR.
The clerk. believing that the statute In
question required the payment OF the PEN
atty Of s.. although the copies Of the APP
plication had not been served upon the
owner refused 10 accept the tender Of the
taxes and interest. and thereupon Mr..
Brown applied 10 the Court Of Appeals
at Wythevlle for a mandamus TO compel
Mr.. Christian 10 receive the tax and in
terest in fun payment and to mark his
land redeemed
The Court df Appeals, however as
stated in a. dispatch from Wytheville 10
The Times this morning. has sustained
the view taken OF the law by the clerk.
and has refused t0 award the writ Of
mandamus
4 TEST CASE.
This action on the part OF Mr. Brown
was made In the nature or test case,
and the result will come as surprise 10
a large number n citizens. among them
many lawyers. who have expressed them
selves as confident that the statute was
unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court decides that the
s. penalty attaches Immediately upon the
fling Of the application. although no cop
les have been served
I1L IEl II wv
Brown VS. Christian, clerk, vas petl-
ton for = mandamus involving the con-
structiOn Of the Act OF Assembly aD-
proved February H. 1898, relative 10 de-
linquent lands purchased In the name OF
the Auditor. A mandamus was prayed
10 compel the clerk 10 accept the taxes
and charges due on a parcel or land so
purchased and for which an application
had been filed. without payment by the
owner Of the s. penalty TO the applicant
The court held that the right OF the
applicant 10 this penalty attached I'M
mediately upon filing appheatloh.
The land has been forfeited and be-
longs to the Commonwealth and 1t is only
by her favor that it can be redeemed.
The objects OF the act are 70 induce those
interested 10 reclaim ana encourage
others 10 come forward ana BUY the
property. The penalty was doubtless m
tended to reimburse the applicant lot MS
trouble.
ANY other construction would defeat
the purpose OF the law. for no one would
prepare an application and pay omcers
fees when the land could be reclaimed
simply by payment Of tax ana interest," 10
clerk. The language OF the statue III no
person who has a right 10 redeem al .he
time OF the service OF the copies or the
completion OF the order OF publication
aforesaid appear within four months az
ter such copies have been eerved. etc.
was INTENDED 10 nix the date OF the ser
vice OF copies, etc, as the time from
winch the redemption period OF TOUR