
    *Hansbrough & Wife v. Stinnett.
    August Term. 1872,
    Staunton.
    i. Jurisdictional Amount—Supreme Court—Fraud.—On the trial of an action for slander, in the progress of the trial, the defendant lakes several exceptions 'to the rulings of the court. The jury find a verdict for the plaintiff for $500; and the plaintiff by his counsel, releases upon the record five dollars of the damages assessed by the jury, and the court renders judgment for $495; to all which the defendant obj ected at the time. The release was in fraud of the jurisdiction of the Supreme court of Appeals, and is void; and this court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the cause, upon appeal.
    In an action for slander in the Circuit court of Botetourt county, in which Richard Stinnett was plaintiff and Hiram Hansbrough and Ann his wife, were defendants, the cause came on for trial at the April term 1872 of the court, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and assessed his damages at five hundred dollars. The defendants thereupon moved the court to grant them a new trial; but the court overruled the motion. And the plaintiff by his attorney then in open court released five dollars, parcel of the damages found by the verdict of the jury; and the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants for four hundred and ninety-five dollars, the residue of the damages found by the jury, with interest from that day, and costs.
    The defendants objected to the release of the five dollars, part of the damages; but the court overruled the objection, and permitted it to be done; and the defendants excepted.
    The defendants had taken several other exceptions in the progress of the trial; and applied to a judge of this court *for a supersedeas to the judgment; which was awarded. The cause being thus pending in this court, the appellee moved the court to dismiss the supersedeas for the want of jurisdiction, the judgment of the court being as was alleged for less than $500.
    Pendleton, for the motion.
    Hansbrough, against it.
    
      
       Jurisdictional Amount.—The principal case is cited in Fink v. Denny, 75 Va. 667, and Cox v. Carr, 79 Va. 35, as authority for the statement that parties can neither confer on, nor rob a court of, jurisdiction, by improper devices.
      In Todd v. Gates. 20 W. Va. 470. the court, citing the principal case as authority, said: “If, therefore, in this case, it had appeared before the justice, or on the trial in the county court, that the plaintiff’s claim, or amount sued on. was an entire sum, exceeding the jurisdiction of the justice, and that the plaintiff by feigned credits or otherwise had reduced it to an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice, or sued upon only a part of it, and It was not shown during the trial that such claim was subj ect to bona jlde credits, set-offs or counterclaims, sufficient in amount to reduce it to a sum of which the justice has jurisdiction, the court should have dismissed the action as coram non judice."
      
    
   MONCURE, P.

read the judgment of the court.

Upon a motion to dismiss the supersedeas awarded in this cause, for the want of jurisdiction, the judgment of the court below, as is alleged, being for a less sum than $500.

This day came again the parties by their attorney, and the court is of opinion that the release given by the attorney of the plaintiff, in the court below, of five dollars of the damages, amounting to five hundred dollars found by the verdict of the jury, was given for the purpose of depriving this court of appellate jurisdiction in this case ; that the said release for the said purpose is unlawful and void; and that in regard to the question of such jurisdiction, the judgment of the court below must be considered as having been rendered for the said sum of five hundred dollars, the damages aforesaid, instead of for the sum of four hundred and ninety-five dollars, the residue of the said damages, after deducting the said sum of five dollars. Therefore, it is adjudged and ordered that the motion to dismiss the case for the want of jurisdiction, on the ground, that the judgment of the court below is for less than five hundred dollars, be overruled, and that the defendants recover against the plaintiff in the said motion, their costs by them about their defence in the same expended.  