The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-16

engaged in fishing without paying the
license tax before March 3, 1893, when the
act went into effect. as well as after
wards, does not make the statute under
which the Indictment was made an ex
post facto law. That was the error of
the grand jury, and cannot prejudice the
accused
3. "a license tax upon the residents of
the State for the privilege of fishing in
it's waters is not in violation of any pro-
visions of the Constitution of the State
or of the United States. A State has the
right to control the waters within its
territorial limits as 1t sees proper. pro-
vided it does not interfere with any au-
thorIty granted by the United States to
regulate commerce and navigation"
4. Neither lis there anything in the
objection that the tax is not equal and
uniform.
5. Nor Is it double taxation to require
the accused to pay a license tax for the
privilege of carrying on q business and
ait the same time impose a tax upon the
property used by Aim in carrying on
that business. Attorneys, physicians,
&c, are examples of such taxatton.f
6. The license tax in question is not in
conflict with Article X, section i of the
Constitution, which provides for a license
tax On such business only as cannot be
reached by the ad valorem system.
IL
not be reached by the ad vnForem system
Is primarily for ufpe Legislature. The
case in question stands upon the same
footing as those of itinerant peddlers.
commission merchants, &C., upon whom
1t has been held license taxes can be
imposed" (a1 Graf, 7s5-)
9TH. The title OF the act under con-
sideratfon is not repugnant to section 10.
act 5. of the Constitution. It has but one
object which Is clearly stated and is suf-
fecently. comprehensive
DIVIDED COURT.
Sth. AS to the contention against the
validity Of the act of March 3. 1895. that
it does not state the object to which the
tax imposed shall be applied. and Is there
tore in violation of section 16. act TO-, OF
the constitution, a majority Of the court
held that under the decision Of this court
in Iyerson Browns case, III supra, and
the cases there cited. the object for which
the tax was imposed Is sufficiently stated.
Judges Harrison and Caldwell held to the
view that il, as the act declared. tt as no
Part of the oyster fund of the State. for
what object was it imposed and for Wnat
purpose IS 1t to be used? The act does not
show and for this reason Is Invalid
While the corrt held the statute to be
valid. constitutional and that the indict-
ment was sufficient to show the accused
guilty Of the offence charged
For failure to set aside the verdict on
this ground the Judgment was reversed.
the verdict set aside and the case re-
nanded for new trial.
ACTION ON BENEFIT Ct1RTTF'iCSAIti.
Oeters vs.. Supreme Lodge. knights OF
Honor. Opinion by Judge keisn,
This case. which is appealed from the
Law and Equity Court of the City of
Ric,mond. has been heard by the Court OF
AnneaIs before and is reported IN % v a..
$40 where the decision of the tsiai court
was reversed.
The csse now comes up on appeal from
n Judgment in favor OF the ue ieiis'ahe
entered in sustaining the plea OF non
assumpsit advanced by salo u iel'
order. ,,.o,,,., -
THE n1alntir in error is the brother OF
ra.,l, Caters who was at one time q
-nannher of Monroe Lodge. No sis. ~ o.
II Richmond Va. but VINO Was suss
nendel on January /. 1865 for non pa rneiit
If THO Dec 1884, assessment. ana M4so WIS
no+ reinstated at the time OF his desaln III
1895 ~ raad In
The plaintiff introduced ana rss.u IN, =,
| a,-;,ence two letters from officers OF the
order and also the benesht cer.lnstA's' !" -
had heeu issued to his 5proehef.
",Tba court held that the letters .peans put
a,-,1a,,ce nv the plaintiff Ind con tadn-
mo statements on the part OF Su e ae
. ~ lcrf1ar which were gerHnne % lnsElst
s.ms and which were uncontradicted.by
~, : ,latntifr. we're properly oelose eng
iurv and that the verdict Una va l in
~. : Z, a 'havine taken ont a Rcnsft Ger
tificate lin the Knights Of Honor. but Ne
ing suspended on January l., lS.ss Iar , hen.
payment OF the assessment Htlu = %
M, -, r,acember. 1884, was not. theretoFe.
: A.. nemher the order at une time Of his
tdaath Vas proper.
Judgment Of the Law and Equity Court
affirmed. s,,.,..
WARRANTY IN NsIIIsaesseiss .'1itl-ti
CIES5. 81 81
metropolitan Insurance Co.. -. fsus -
49,, q Onintnns nv Judge Bueh01aA -