Commonwealth, Va. , S. E. , and authorities cited; L. & N. R. Co. v. Interstate R. Co., Va. , S. E. , S. E. .To hold that the Legislature Intended that that section should apply to persons other than the claimant of the land In whose name It had been returned delinquent and sold, and those claiming under him, would not only result in great hardship and injustice, but would give it an effect not within the power of the Legislature.It is well known that under the loose system prevailing In this state for a long time, by which public lands were disposed of, two grants were frequently Issued, sometimes more, for the same land. If the junior grantee or those claiming under him had permitted the land to be returned delinquent for the nonpayment of the taxes thereon, sold therefor and purchased in the name of the auditor for the benefit of the state, neither the senior grantee nor those claiming under him, under the construction contended for by the plaintiffs in error, could recover possession of the land by action from the junior grantee or those claiming under him, unless they first paid all the taxes and levies assessed against It, and for which it had been returned delinquent and sold, although the senior grantee or those claiming under him may have had the land properly assessed for taxation and regularly paid the taxes and levies thereon. Neither could the claimants of land, who had a perfect title to it, recover possession of it from a squatter or other trespasser, or recover damages for injuries done it, or protect it from injury, by action or suit If another asserting title to it had caused the laud to be assessed in his name for taxation and afterwards permitted It to be returned delinquent and sold for the nonpayment of the taxes and levies thereon, until the former claimant had paid such taxes and levies.To Impose such a burden upon a litigant as a condition precedent to his right to recover possession of or protect his land from Injury by action or suit would not only be absurd and unjust, but beyond the power of the Legislature. See Cooley on Taxation d Ed. pp. -.We are of opinion that section of the Code, as amended, applies to and embraces only the person in whose name the land so sold and purchased by the commonwealth was assessed, returned delinquent and sold, and those who claim under him. As the plaintiffs in the action of ejectment In which the judgment was rendered upon which the writs sought to be quashed were Issued do not claim under the party in whose name the land was returned delinquent, sold, and purchased by the commonwealth, they were entitled to their writs of possession and fieri facias, and the circuit court did not err in overruling the motion to quash and dismissing the same.The judgment complained of must be affirmed.Affirmed.O’DONNELL v. COMMONWEALTH.Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Sept. , .. Criminal,Law PbesumptionOfInnoCence.One charged with crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by the evidence beyond every reasonable doubt.[Ed. Note.For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. , Criminal Law, § .. IntoxicatingLiquobs SalesToPebeoNS “intoxicated.”The word “intoxicated” in an indictment charging a violation of Acts , p. , c. , I . providing that no person shall knowingly sell intoxicating liquor to any intoxicated person, means a materially changed condition produced by the immoderate or excessive use of intoxicants, as contrafted with normal condition and conduct.[Ed. Note.For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. , Intoxicating Liquors, .For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. , pp. -.. SameIllegalSalesPersonsLiable”knowinglySell.”Under Acts , p. , c. , § , providing that “no personshall knowingly sell [ardent spirits to any intoxicated person.” and section , p. declaring that any person violating any of the provisions of the act shall be
