Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1909-03-12
Man Hanged for Murder Indebted
to The Commonwealth.
MONEY EXPENDED N PROSECUTION
State Supreme Court Cites Author.
ties and Precedents for Ordering
Reimburs ement-Amount Involved
About $1,000.

hIN ho\l', ~. -h't' u
Thirty-three caSeS--somr OF them OF
wide public int"rcst--wpr" decided to.
day by Ihe Virginia COnri of Appeals,
bat the litigation involving the consti-
nationality Of the Ward election law
was not passed on.
In the batch Of opinions handed
down are eight decisions touching
Richmond cases and several reversals
also one iienrico case. that of People =
Pleasure Park Co. VS. ROhleder. which
is now finally decided in favor of The
negroes.
Costs in Mccue Case.
The Corporation Court of Char
lotlesvillc is reversed in the famous
fight OF the Commonwealth against
the executors of J. Samuel McCle.
which involves the question whether
the estate OF the late mayor must bear
the expense incurred and paid by the
State in the prosecution of the case
which landed McCue on the callows
FOR wife murder.
This means that the McCue estate
must ultimately pay these costs. which
amount TO about $1,000. 1t has re-
Gently been explained, however. that
this litigation does not involve the
money spent in the actual execution
Of the prisoner. though that for a long
time was the impression tn" public
had
The case. a .ide from the general
proposition involved. became cOmpli-
Gated by several technicalities which
need not be mentioned here.
Authorities Cited.
The opinion cites the sec ion OF the
COde-section 40$7-bearing on the
case. and then says: More than fifty
Years ago this statute was considered
by this court and the character of
the obligation hereunder of a person
convicted Of crime 10 the Common
wealth. for the costs incident 10 his
prosecution and conviction was dis
onssed and defined to Re an eXacti0n
simply for the purpose of rrimhnr.irg
to the public treasury the precise
amount which the conduct of the de-
fendant has rendered it necessary
should he expended for the vindica'
ton of the public justice OF the State
and its violated laws II is money
paid. laid out and expended for tne
purpose of repairing the consequences
of the defendants wrong. Ii is de-
manded of him for good and sufi-
cient consideration. and constitutes an
item of debt from him to the Com
|monwealth. Payment of costs is no
part OF the sentence of the court. and
constitutes no part Of the penalty or
pun; shment prescribed for the offense
Indeed our statute expressly declares
that the laws of costs shall not be
interpreted a. pena! laws: they are
to be construed a. remedial statutes.
and literally and beneficially ex'
pounded for the sake OF the remedy
which they administer
The DEGREES of the lower court are
reversed and set aside and the cause
remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with the views expres.e
in the opinion This. of course. means
loss to the MCCue estate.
Judge Harrison wrote The opinion
in this case.
School Supply Case.
The case OF the Commonwealth
against the Norfolk City School Board
aS
litigation came up from the Law and
Chancerv Court of Norfolk. The facts
in the case are that the State Board
of Education was empowered by legis-
lative act TO select the supplies and
furniture for the public schools Of the
State. the various local boards to Sc
lect any design tina, might have been
approved by the Board of Education.
The Norfolk city board diSregarded
the law but was not cognizaDt Of its
provisions and made a contract with
concern which had lost the contract
in competition with other concerns.
The Norfolk loard entered into the
contract with the concern for supplies
and furniture. and the equipment was
in tailed. The Law and ChanCery
Court Of Norfolk upheld the action Of
the local board. declaring il had au-
thoriiv to deal with the subject.
The opinion today says mat the de.
PENDANT concern did not act in good
faith. and after quoting the statutes.
the Supreme Court reverses the court
below and enters decree perpetua.
ting the injunction. AS the trial court
ousht to have done" Judge Buch,
anan wrote the opinion.
Tax titles 20 Land
The decision in the case Of Bowe
against the city Of Richmond. from
the Chancery Court. Is affirmed. The
appellant. x. r. Rove. bought parcel
OF land in the city which had been
returned delinquent A deed was made
bv the clerk Of the Hastings Court
and duIy recorded The taxi due the
State were paid by Bowe. The cit,
interviewed and demanded that the
taxes duc the CITY should be paid be
fore a title could bc vested in the
claimant under the tax deed. The
property in question had first been bid
on for the state by the auditor for
the benefit of the State and for the
CITY as well and the court holds that
the anre'lant had no righi 10 purcha 'e
N without the payment of the taxes
iherrou due both
-.