The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-01-13


down its opinion in tho case Of Cannon
ys. the Commonwealth. At the Novem-
ber term Of lsg1 of the Corporation Court
of Norfolk, Joseph T.. Cannon was con-
victcd Of conepiring with others TO ruin
/ tho character of his wife. lie was scn-
fenced TO one year n Jail and TO pay
"a fine of IW0 ln order that Cannon
/ might apply for writ OF error, the court
| below postponed execution OF the juds-
mcnt 10 its january term, 1,gs, and Cam
non was admitted 90 bail in the sum OF
5000 with his father as surety. At the
january term Joseph II. Cannon. not ap-
/ pcarng, his default was entered OF re-
cord, and ON the 1th day Of February
lse, am order was entered, directing a
sc.re facias 10 issue on The recognizance.
ON The return of the sciro facias the
Cannons appeared hy counsel, craved
over OF the recognizance. and demurred
Co the scire facias. Joseph T.. cannon or
lered a plea OF infancy and Joseph Can
ron plea in bar, claiming that the re-
c0gniMuce being void as 10 the infant,
tne surety was not bound.
On tho Gth of May lSs. the court
oyerruled the demurrer. and rejected
each OF the pleas. and entered Judgment
against Joseph j.. Cannon and Joseph
Cannon. and thereupon the Court OF Ap-
peals awarded the writ of error.
Jule. CardWeu. who wrote the opinion,
Says the only question that need Doe COM
sidorel ls raised by the demurrer ana
that is whether the recogu'zance is void
or n0t The court holds: "Whcn re-
c0gu.2ance i5 taken o. should show on
its eaoe that the condition IL contains Is
t0 do sOme act for the performance or
which. such am obligation may be proper
ly taken. and hat the court or officers
Deflre whom IT, is taken, has authority
% act JOB cases of tl4t general character.
Archer SIS. Commonwealth, 10 Graft, j.
CS.
"Up0n the demurrer there is nothing
before the court but the scire Mcids. and
the rec0eniz8nce. The entry of default
cannot bee looked 90 in aid of the recog-
nizauce ass lts validity must be consid-
cred standing alone upon the demurrer.
wood vs. Commonwealth. Rand, go.
I'VE are of opinion that the Judgment
complained of must Doe reversed and an-
nulled. and O. Judgment entered here for
tho plaintiffs n error on their demurrer
Nfaryc ". the Board.
President Keith wrote the opinion in
the case or Aarye, Auditor, vs the
Board of Agriculture, from the circuit
Court of Richmond. The board applied
TO Judge Wexford for mandamus, TO
require the Auditor of Public Accounts 10
honor certain warrants drawn upon him
by the treasurer of tie Board or Agrl-
culture. The petition recites that grave
duties are imposed upon The board or
much Importance TO the agricultural In
terests of tho State and for the purpose
OF carrying out the designs for which
the board was established an appropria-
zion OIL $1,000 was made by the Legisla-
turc. approved March 8, lsgs, which was
TO be placed t0 its credit. drawn out by
warrants of its treasurer. cOuntcrsisned |
bv it's president The relations further
aver that this law has never been re-
pealed unless it be by act approved /
March 3. lNS and that 81 was nj full /
force and effect ON the first day OF Octo- F.
ber. lsg1. THEY claim that under the pro- !
visions OF this act On the lst day oi Oc- I
t0ber. 1897. there was, or should have T
been. on the books OF the Auditor 10 the .
credit OF the board the sum OF $1,000. /
and that warrants We're drawn and hon i
ored by the Auditor for the sum or .
I.I
10 March ,. ls9S. il is claimed that the /
moneys so paid should have been charged /
against the $1,000 appropriated by the /
act OF 1895, and i that act was not In /
force then the payment was without au- 4
thority OF law and the Auditor Is with /
out authority % use money dedicated /
TO otheH purposes by the Legislature 70 /
wipe out this 0verdraft 10 IS further /
claimed that IN order 10 keep the Ag- /
sicultural bureau a going concern" /
drafts amounting 90 Sl9L65 were drawn /
and presented TO the Auditor, and pay I
ment refused because OF the provision OF .
tho general appropriation bill, approved .
March 3. 1855
The other details or this litigation are 1
familiar 90 the readers OF The Times.
After referring TO the provisions Of the /
general appropriation bill. the court says /
language could hardly be more explicit /
than that which, in speaking OF the sala-
ries of the officers and the expenses Of the .
Board Of Agriculture. says that they /
shall be paid from the fees and taxes
collected on fOrfoitures. 81 sufficient for /
the purpose; IL not, they shall be paid
pro rata from said funds; but in no event
shall such salaries and expenses, or any
part thereof, be paid out OF the public
treasury Should there be any excess
from said taxes and fees on fertilizers.
the same shall be paid into the treas
ury."
The court says: The writ OF man.
damus will not issue in such a case. ex-
ccpt 20 compel the performance OF
plain duty. There can be no payment or
public money. except In pursuance OF
law and We nave been able 10 discover
no law applicable 20 this case.
1T IS not for us 20 express any opinion
upon the merits of the methods pursued
IN the management and control OF the
finances OF the State. They are doubtless
such as have come down TO Us from the
past. and will prevail until altered by
law. our duty ends when the conclusion
IS reached that there is no existing law
which. IN our judgment, requires us 10
grant the prayer Of tho petitioners"
The Judgment of the Circuit Court is
reversed. and the petition dismissed.
Ihis ends an interesting suit. and settles
II that no salaries or expenses Of the
IN rTbfr5 naCal 4