UNITED STATES V. TOSTEB. 249 �"If any person, directly or indirectly, give to a voter in any election any money, goods, or chattels, or pay his capi- tation tax, under an agreement, expressed or implied, that sueh voter shall give his vote for a particular candidate, such person shall be punished by fine not less than $20, nor more than $100. And the voter receiving such money, goods, or chattels, or having his capitation tax paid in pursuance of such agreement, shall be punished in like manner with the person giving the same." But there is no law, state or fed- eral, invalidating the vote of the person whose tax bas been paid. �It was shown in evidence that the several persons named in the indictment as having been rejected as voters were in ail other respects qualified voters, and that in respect to the payment of the capitation tax they had exhibited to the de- fendants, as judges of election, receipts precisely alike, except as to the name of the tax payer, and which were of the fol- lowing tenor: �"COMMONWEALTH OP VlBGlNIA, �"OiJJ'IOE OF THE AUDITOB OP PcBLIO AoCODNTS, �"EiOHMOND, Va., October 30, 1880. "$1.05. �"Eeceived of John Burton the receipt of the treasurer of the commonwealth for $1.05, on account of capitation and personal-property taxes returned delinquent for the non- payment thereof by the treasurer of Manchester city for the year 1879. �"G. W. DuBSBERBT, Jr., Clerk." �It was also shown in evidence that the defendants, judges of election, based their refusai to receive the votes of the hold- ers of these receipts, first upon the ground that they did not know that G. W. Daesberry, Jr., was a clerk of the auditor of Virginia, and did not know from his receipts that the taxep had been paid, and that thereupon a witness at once made affidavit that he knew that Duesberry was such clerk, and knew, moreover, of bis own knowledge, that these particular taxes had been paid. It was proved that after several hpurs of the election day had passed the judges saw a written opin- ��� �
