Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-02-09
A TAX ON CAPITAL.
SUPREME COURT SAYS MERCHANTS
NEED NOT PAY 1T.
THE HENRY COUNTY MURDER Case.
The Court Says Fraud to Obt"in IN
surauce Was Not Proven--seNerai
Opinions Handed Down "e'"'e
court Adjourned tn March 'th'

term lust closed. leaving thirty-two cases
on this docket. There viii also De seven
commonwealth cases and three privileged
cases. making total of forty-two cases
to be heard al the March term.
The court has worked so diligently that
it Is very probable that it will clean up
the docket at the next term, somethihs
that has not been done IN years. SeVerai
important opinions were handed down
yesterday.
TAX ON MERCHANTS CAPITAL
One very interesting case decided was
that OF the Board OF Supervisors ol
Montgomery county VS.. W. +. Iaiidh''
The appellee is a merchant. His lnVestcu
capital was assessed by the Commission
CT of the Revenue Of Montgomery coun5
". He resisted payment on the SUM-
that such taxation was Illegal III we" "a
mis- having paid his license tax as M
chant. The question 10 be declueu ~.
Does the State assess with laAes -
capital employed by a merchant III n.'
business? The opinion, whlch i oAi',r
tive and able, holds that ne does No..
Iudqe Harrison prepared il. Judges Rlely
and Buchanan dissented. 20
The opinion holds that the language VI
the statute requiring merchants ~ 70
license makes il perfectly clear tnal -
law does not contemplate the taXduoh VI
their invested capital; indeed, tne "Viuo
in the section Of the Code relerreu "
make II clear it should not De so dS-
sessed, declaring 1.-THE sums imposed uIluei
and by virtue Of this section shall be In
lien Of all taxes. for State purposes, on
the capital actually employed oy saiu
merchant or mercantile firm in said ousl-
ness" To make still clearer the intent
the same section provides what shall Dc
construed as capital, and says: All
other property held by such merchant
or firm shall be listed end taxed as other
property" again excluding the idea tnat
the capital employed by the merchant
shall be assessed for taxation.
The opinion states that prior 10 Io'i
the capital employed by merchants IN
their business was assessed for taxation,
but i'm that year an act was passed con
tanning the same provisions found IN the
present act providing for license III
stead OF assessment of capital Inc
constitutionality of the act was assailed'
but the Supreme Court held that the
legislature had the right 10 determine
whether the business Of the merchah'
could be reached by the ad valorem sys-
tenn or not, and to adopt the pollcy Oh
recurring q
The appellant relied. in part, at least
upon Article X, section !, of the state
Constitution. which declares that an
taxes shall be uniform. and that all real
and personal property shall be taxed
The provision OF the Code that He the
Commissioner shall ascertain from each
person i'm his district. city, or town. the
amount of capital invested, used OF EN-
ployed in any trade or business hpl
otherwise taxed" was also relied upon
by the board. The opinion admits lhdt
read by itself this clause Woula appear
10 support the contention OF the board
hut holds that. construed with the other
provisions of the license law quoted, II
was clearly not the duty Of the commas
sioner TO assess the capital for state pur-
poses. and consequently not Tor county
purposes The Legislature has expressly
refrained from taxing such capital IoI
state purposes. and has not authorize'
its taxation for county purposes.
SAYS MURDER NOT PROVEN
4 case i'm which there is a great deal
of popular interest, because OF lI4v 81
sational charges of murder TO obtain m
euranoe nolicies. IS that Of the New YORK
Life Insurance Company vs.. DAVIS ct ans
from the Circuit Court OF henry CouutS.
John w. r. Davis, a citizen OF N <a%s
county on May ~ 90 lS3' c s1oa and Su about
month later another policy Ior $500 ~
Both policies were for the benefit Oh ms
estate, and on June 27th, both were as d
signed to w. w. Lester, VINO au'"''0
the premium on each policy -,
Davis died February "a, 1875, uhueI ClL
cumstances indicating poisoning, anu III
picion was directed to Lester, VINO Moa .
greatly profit by his death. ne WaS d" ~
rested tried in the County Ooui'
Henry, but was acquitted. nj. t,oi,,,
Mean while, the father or DAVIS, pstnS
the distributee of his sons estate, tieu
a bill TO enjoin Lester from colIe a,i,
To Lester the money due on the poIlcles,
and TO compel the payment or the money
10 the distributee, except such portoh as
was necessary to reimburse Lester LOT
money advanced for the premiums. The
father was later made administrator
The company resisted payment, on the
ground that Lester persuaded DAVIS 10
Insure his life; that he procured from
paws the assignment of the policies with
the intention of killing him, that ne
might collect them, and That he after
wards did so.
favor of Lester. and the Supreme Court
affirms the judgment of the lower court.
The opinion which was written by Judge
Rely, says that while some facts proven
tend to excite suspicion, upon careful
consideration it is found that there IS no
clear and satisfactory proof OF fraud or
crime. The lower court, by its decree,
forfeited 10 the insurance company the
amount of premiums paid by Lester, and
only decreed the residue OF the policies
TO be paid to Davis's estate.
LAW OF NEGOTIABLE PAPER.
Wright VS. Independence National Bank.
of l4ynchburg, involved several points or
the law OF negotiable paper. W. +.
Roberts gave his note, payable to II. -.
! Wright or order, at the Traders Bank.
Wright endorsed it to the bank, and 1t
was endorsed TO and held by the lnde-
| pendence Bank. with other notes. as col
| lateral to secure the payment of note
| due il from the Traders Bank. After the
! Independence Bank had brought action
/ at law on the notes held as collateral,
| including the note sued on. the bank
made o verbal contract with the Traders
| Bank by which II was agreed that If
| the latter would curtail its note TO $1,000,
| the plaintiff the Independence Bank
would allow the Traders Bank 10 give
new note for that sum, payable in thirty
| DAYS, and dismiss all the suits upon the
| and attorneys fees The terms were
| complied with by the defendant.
| The chief question considered by Judge
| Buchanan, who prepared the opinion, is
| which will discharge or release first en-
| dorser. can be made with any other per-
| son than the maker Of the note, or prln-
| cipal debtor The court holds that II
cannot. The opinion says: THE agree
ment relied on In this case having been
made between the holder OF the note Ohe
| PLANTING and the last endOrser upon 1t,
| did not prevent the first endOrser 0he de-
| fendanD from paying the debt and pro-
| ceeding at once against the maker, or
! from exercising any rights which a surety
! NAV assert for mis- protection against his
| principal The agreement did not dis
| charge the first endorser from his liability
| on the note, and furnished no defence