The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-27

Lie Jull6
cult Court of Chester ield county. M
Johnson Against Black.
s6 In tho case OF Johnson and others VS..
q Black X and Il others, II an ii q ppeal from the
DEGREES OF the Circuit Court OF Norfolk
$county.ath the opinionMof the court is writ
ten by Judge George NJ. Harrison. and Is
IAN exhaustive and complete review OF a
remarkably interesting and equally I'M
portant cause. The issues involved are
such that they may have a bearing In
other II counties Of the State.
wv. &c S. j Johnson, John Al Codd, George
Il. Wood, il. 4 G. Lynch and DIN, Hard
sing, tho appellants I'm the case, arc. X 81,
were Il ccent ly,aS supervisors 3 Of ols
Il county u They were made par les sdefen-
dant In Il the suit 4 In ed uityy brought by
Foster Black and other citizens md tax
payers B Of thes county for the purpose
/ Of compelling said appellants to restore
to the county treasury certain public
moneys, which 1T Is charged. they had
Illegally and fraudulent ORA Wn e here re
from. Tho amounts over and above the
sum to which. It IS ale ed n hese ~ super
Eylsors were entitled under the statute for
attendance and mileage at meetings of
the board within the three years last
past are thus stated In the decree of the
Circuit Court Of Norfolk county, which
held thnt the defendants in the original
suit should restore 10 the county arc as
follows: wv. S. ohnson, S9f520, With IN
terest: ohm a. Codd, 81 ,22S3 70. WI Hin
tterest; George 2. Wood. 81 .o1o, with IN L
#terest IS J. G. Lynch, $4l2, with q Interest,
and D. M. Harding, $50, 30. With Interest.
The lower court held that tho eyiden
aid not justify the charge that the DE- 3,
PENDANTS had entered into fraudulent l'tlll i
conspiracy, but, only showed tina they mad
followed All illegal custom md preceue g,
Of their predecessors in off flee In tllegaally
withdrawing from the treasury 81 9tlla
county compensation in excess OF ina tga II
lowed by law; that the mount Of such
excess the plaintiffs were entitled to have
returned and restored to the " treasury,
so far as the recovery Of the same rs not
barred by tho statute of limitations, Which
precludes recovery OF any amounts drawn
q $ much as three years efore. The sums
named therefore represent W only .il tho
amount illegally appropriated to them
selves during. tile three years Just pa sssd
blythe supervisors named
Disnisses Objection. y
The first assignment df error BY plain
9tiffsi In error was as to The action OF the
court in not sustaining the demurrer OF
the Hill. j t IS insisted that the bill is n,ul-
Stifarious. and should for thisareason have
been dismissed, The court nsiders his
contention a some length, dlsrnlss ing he
objection as invalid, declaring that the
case Is FREQ from the vice OF null Hilarious.
ness, { tg3i sS Il. 81 & . ~
rho second contention Is that.the de- de-,
imurrerS should have been sustained and
the bill dismissed because the appellees
had an adequate remedy at law. Tho alo-
pcllate court sustains the View Of tho de-
PENDANTS iii error that courts of equity
have jurisdictionsi in this and similar ca SEES.
and that having once acqul red 1T, they
never lose 1t because jurisdiction of the
Same matter3ls given to courts Of law, IN
the absence of restrictive or prohlbltory
words In the statute. t lis further held
that there Is no adequa to remedy at law
for tho recoyeryio OF moneys LEGALLY Sd'-
fyerted from and already paid out OF the
public treasury. Which ls the Object o.
this suit, 1, Il 8ii "a 81
@5The contention of the plaintiffs In error
that; the defendants In error were lguil ~
Of 5laches is dismissed as untenable, u is
we'll settled, says the court, that lacl'cs
cannot be imputed to those who are 'igrln-
their rights, as Were defendaHts
in error. IN ,.i
n on the whole the court holds that the
lower court properly overruled the deml'r-
trers The court, after considering the ques-
ton of the illegality Of the action OF tue
supervisors, says that the 7tconclu slon Is
plain that the appellant have without
authority Of law appropriated to their
ioWnFuse the public funds $af the:.oounty.
and that they should be- required to re-
store. the samc to tho public treasury to
the extent TINT they seyerally appear TO
be }linb BILE therefor .ss 5
g,3The appelleess assign as n cross error
the action Of the Circuit Court In sustain
Ing the pleas of the statute Of liMt'l7
Stions, set up III the answers of the appelr
.lants as "a defense in part to the bill,
Says the court on this point;i The APP
pellants nre only constructive or IMPLIED
trustees aud In such ca SOS II seems TO bsi
we'll settled that he bar Of tho statute
applies. s3 x Il M a
The Circuit Court So Norfolk county, Q 8