and all attempts to show the injustices perpetrated by the act. 490 An appeal 
was taken to the General Court, but it was thought that it might be necessary 
to apply to the King in Council to be allowed to prove damages before it 
or that the General Court be directed to take and to transmit depositions. 491 
But an erroneous entry on the record that payment had been received in tobacco, 
not money, was conceived to cut off all further recourse by appeal. 492 
On October 10,1759, Camm brought an action of trespass on the case in the 
General Court against Charles Hansford and William Moss, collectors of the 
York-Hampton parish levy. Plaintiff's declaration first set forth two acts: (1) 
the 1748 act which was alleged to have remained in full force ever since its 
confirmation by the King in Council in October, 1751; (2) another 1748 enactment 
providing for double value penalty payments where collectors refused 
or delayed to creditors payments in tobacco. 493 Then Camm alleged 
his status as minister, his performance of ministerial duties in the parish of 
York-Hampton for the period of September, 1757, to September, 1758, whereby 
under the 1748 act he became entitled to sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco, 
and cask, with allowance for shrinkage, as salary; that 17,280 pounds of tobacco 
were in 1758 levied in the parish as plaintiff's salary, that defendants were appointed 
collectors thereof, and that they had not paid plaintiff the said quantity 
of tobacco or inspector's notes for the same, although often demanded; further, 
that the said tobacco was of the value of current money, that by virtue 
of the last act defendants should forfeit but that payment had been refused 
to the damage to appellant of 494 
The defendants, in their answer, pleaded the 1758 act, and alleged that in 
accordance therewith a tender had been made and refused of ,£144 current 
money in discharge of 17,280 pounds of tobacco. In his replication thereto 
Camm alleged that the 1758 act was null and void from its inception, the assembly 
having no power to enact such law, since it suspended the force of the 
confirmed 1748 act contrary to the gubernatorial instructions; also, that the 
said 1758 act had been disallowed and declared void and of no effect by the 
King in Council. Therefore, it was alleged that the aforesaid tender was not 
good and sufficient in law. In their rejoinder the defendants still protested that 
they did not nor could not have received 17,280 pounds of tobacco or the 
pretended value thereof from the tithable persons in the parish. Furthermore, 
490 Ibid., 481-82. Evidence was offered of 
sales of tobacco at 50 shillings per hundred 
pounds as opposed to the sixteen shillings, 
eight pence rate under the act. 
491 Ibid., 482. 
492 Ibid., 497. 
493 Case of Appellant (printed "case" for use 
in the Privy Council appeal), Add. MS, 
36,220/52. The proceedings below are also 
set out in the Case of Respondent, Add. MS, 
36,220/55. For the penalizing act, see 6 
Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 154. Unfortunately 
the records of the General Court were destroyed 
in toto during the Civil War, so we 
are forced to rely upon other sources. 
iM Add. MS, 36,220/52.