The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-01-17
apncIAL NorIcEa.
:, CRY ~ Rloamoxp VS. Aaa.H..

az "A f.r
I'D ~ wSG. eafs been dedicated 70 thr public
and that the right Of passage over IL, by al, shs
ass thereby secured 60 them, no matter In whotn
as the t,A 80 the ia"d otisipaly or Is But NJ pr
iys ohect,d by the eyansel for the de-, ndaat tina,
Il spy such Fkat ma eFes been acquired 10y ihe
rublt. il hss been taken away by a Judgment In
:leSgmsai against this CITY, took q e. the next
il, [, exsminc 81 d G nsiaer IT tb arga aents and
,Ethetile- Submitted e. he clansei Respect
i.a,b Tor the Counsel and tic authority OF the Sa.
vremc ours OF the Uuitsd ta'es required his "a
LAY for "ns he NET !" tsoSoa r sxa@ ~ nation aud matn
r, 4 vton. sm 9eededlS oi epiJ ion that there Is
n5thsS la tn. oSIoe tiob-thai the obstiuet GA com
p'snta O. ~es slo.aiiod OF an ordnance 81 the
sity-that fer the Rrst dsy OF which IL was PLACE Il
IN The si'eef, tse ~ S''endsa" shontd 6e hned 0,
and e. eVcrl DAY tl1' fcaitaE. du'ing is eoatiru
anee So ltis proper here 20 rema that in ~
fer NJ to 'h's are. the 9GeStioa never was, and
GOALS ne: have been deeid'd d by been judiri~l.
ly tesnrt tae Coari ID speests. any Other Curt.
10 VA sics agaust The city of ttchmrni In 81 CT.
raeu;ha, sit "a, olv, The rieh, 10 the land viii
he r;y never i,priei, Sly decision ada SIT, Of
sa.'aips ths iisk of way over H. IL was my tn,.
p'se have reiaate@ the case vita my "rii ion and
ite authorities cited fur aud against tn l. hit cf
way, bat as very able and learned friend has falf
sufnt.ens intzrss' ia the subject TO induce him
Ss65ei me the result, and they are the s,me /, Aen
hv ue, submit then 60 You for publication If you
'l.aS proper JoskPH MAYO. Mayor.
fHx rwrirrH STREET OBSTRUCTION.
a.s'ienr- Nsrw,ek q Ssrksiale are brought be
fge the Mayor, upon rhe charge tt they ii
At u5lasfoi abstraction at Q certain place in the
eliy of Richmond.
fasv coafeSs that they maintsin sn obstruction AT
the plsse sleSed. but ny thai 1. IL uulawgul TN
;he contrary they eneRd thar therein they do bpt
ese, IA tsesE all sad frtehoid.
10 thts 81 is replied that though the place is the r
so and ireehos. rev elt5eless IN maintaining such
o.strv lor thers a. they do rftf exercise right o,
theiT VI tUI da violate Tsxht OF others becs
taeir( srsi:k BsTksds les soil aud freehold is
.t that place sEilc what the civilians call a
ssry, ude nj Thc common lawyers cali an ease.
usut, Of r'sht ~ way owe, 1; ivr the use et ths
t5>r sach ssrss,n5e or easement does exist.
lsley ieIon that no such eyiderce eau be given
oF,H sven, avail. eeesuse 'hey have recently re-
~ r0Jrt Of competent jurlsl,ction In tion OF
-,@,tr9 oi eh,eh they br,pgh; against the ,ity Of
! q .ar.rtioneA, that that Judgment does not In
iscIh.h, sLd IN the very mature Of ,hs ceedl Z
9. aoi ps poes!yiiI;y tonch the Ioint Low in d.s-
purs. s1t concerning which, evidence Is offered
D. q 9cs;ion is. bether i, does or does notY II
tie eiIy et hichAout Could have dsfosied the SC
R pi jest neEt. upon the ground OF the seryIiu lie
- eAseIDeni now alleged, then IT may be admitted
N.a's asserting the extsjeuce Of such an easement
z q, hovoFeT, pOt preclude any others save only
F.tt he city eoald Het h.Ve 40 deeuded tha' scton
ll.a tbs jncxtnent ~ It cannot retluGe Cny one
15t ev-n the city. or pers rs cisigpg in rI.ht ii
III city, from asserting the Tishi OF way up with
D. IN ltIA, Consequences o! such light.
NJ. ae:sing is clearer up2n both principle aus
A4oc Of electmeut, would have been wholly mad.
.slb'e and must hays been accordingly rued ont
uh us lfsienibg for IL. Eieut TO any eyiler ca
..i-h ruiH ha : basr cssred In snnnor} nj ~ II "a
1-rej and cJRirhsed 10 BE- ttue; yet IL cou d
LthANe awaited one whit more in tn At action. than
Sc ril have doGe IL had be.n proved admitted
Z D. isise. Consequently The Judgment given ia
ESt se,Ioa caquot haVe anv bearing tI0f, me quts
k,rl q II siuth or iai.e hood.
U,oa principle this must be SO. because the ac
toa ot Jscsmept asserts Only right t. ths soil aud
tle Posess.on thereof whieh ris hs. IL the raiatf
bss, b must Iecover Thereon; apd = right OF Wy
q. -oil la rot ucouslatent !th ut possession
II 4 vere IL must te because ssch Tiskt of way
voul1 carry with It she right Of ross, Ssion bui
tas sr Of these rights does not draw With 1t the
toJmsr Sud, thsrefose, u} whoever has no other
riS1, ye upou ,he gryupd. than what he derives
II, IN as beng hiahW ay has 10 rgtt TO be hsre
Rt all N~tpt while be Is using IL for the legitimate
purIosc o, highway; spd, therefore If he slaudc
nUFh tret pss,er, ana in e.eYy way Iust much
snsweysbe liz tnet character. loft trespssser as Il
BED Of he oweI adj osaiug 90 EEgl aud ERep 3o4
Reg. Y. Plau Ehis a1so tsiack q. sou I. Z 0ther
than this, abound In our ooks. Aud % tjecsmsnt
Cannot be maintained aeainSt the owner OF the soil
9y pn gat n VII mss ners M bT e[sohs ing
way BOT To leave sufficient TO Tor IsssiDg-
hs raedy q he clearly has one) being In another
form Of > eceeding DChpn. 29i: jndd Leonard
These ant critics prove what Nou!d seem really
clear enough without any. that in the csse of an
b. the public, as Ito be surel I. may be- the ow ier
vi rgtsins has r1ght ot poast ssion and may have
ecsl possession in any aGd every way that is com
T.ur!e with its berg used as an highway. and NAV
kop aii iuirucers would use IL !or any pur-
rs Il another kid nd If te dispose ssed that
i = say q priv, o. such Possession as have hvI
de-crhsi. hs may matntaiG tisctment fer IT, anG
i-At have iEinantd wit OF right or other real
Gclu, tiit eli such actions were abolished by our
pr,sert Code. 1hs will appear by the ,ases TO be
ti;t3 under the next head
II uron auth )sfy, touching directly this point
fine orrer Of the soii bring his aci n Of ejecinent
Lisr a. action. tds ruder oar od isw,) the defen
saut cannot re.st i. ys.nopins rishi oiw.! oyer
tle so,l sny person hateter. q Nogty she~iI y
tha, thevs is highway orsr tho place. for the
ali . rsous 10 gene,a al as Vas decided in Gvoditle
ron. cases in this untfS, whereof i shall tIoa
some the sequel. q N.rbY showing hat there's
snt vi way belonging peculiarly aud exclusively
worth Ia thie ease, Hubbard j.. delivering the
opinion Of the court Used Sums txpresaions p-rtcu
Of TIE Gemandanls 20 tue lie IN the demaHd- pre-
misses snd tho right OF the tenant sthe tech 'icai
naule VI ih- defendant IN real ion) 10 an sas =
mens IL tnsm, ate," sad ne. tights independent OF
each cher a.n may vel subssI toge ether' "A ,e-
eyyrY therefor by he dsn anGaI III not tf-cr
OF dsiGI he Vi ths To. i he has une
IN the y i.e. ., useqt eutly. whe her tn. rig hi
of way Ver the bcls en quo is 10 be regard,
iongink ony 10 Tie Oity % Iub o.d In its torporat
cap4ctt, tLnst CapAc ~ wherein III action EJECT
was bfousht Sssinst the c.ty II as belonging
Ia II eaHnOt s C! either TIE T1x of way The
deI1os OF such Ii2hr.
Iis scae that Ia The case Of the CitY OF CincinuA
r. vs. Wines Lzssse, 6 Pet Rep. 44l-f.i, Ihom >.
ssn delivering The opinion OF Tie supreme Court
Of ftns Un.d arts. attempted aiacIedit the de-
r,son in Il lear ing .his SUBJECT 60 dtite
kel: but he succeeded only in osc rsdlins him.
set ana lis associates. "A few IeIna Ks Will prove
/. He said. .ths later authorities In Englaua
leays !. 81 east questionable, whether the doctrine
ui Lord auseiu. IN ttle case Of GJodtitle er
"lh.t ti .neut WILL lie the OF ths soil fut
land wi. ch Is SUN CT to passage Yer /; as ths
kia.'s highway, would be sustained al the present
d. al I'M n esimlneter Hall " nov, nothing
amos II cisi Ia tnat case, as ever fallen from
any FnxlisA Jcdse, or 81 hngitsh teStwri:sr. that
has ever .unesea, OK tended 10 COZ fiict with Ia.
On t.r con rAsy, u hE1 btt1 universally recogn zed
there f. 10 .be time OF tie decision bsthg mads
dow. to he present moment g absolutely indispu.
tah!r aad az such, il mentio ed ia ali th booas
WINK ave any oecas ion ~ loGCn upon this roiut
In al tt,atses upoI he sw OF Mi crius q Butler
edI., 7oi, Leigh, eao; Harrison 4 EDWARDS, si;s e
phens lSal-.4hs; Archbold. vol a'3;) ia All srea
edit. i5i; Adams. ls--ieii and In numerous other
tooas OF The yer, best crsdit Saunders n ana Ev
:o3, rty iel sihoru. es i.t, e.ui Bac Abr l9lh
eGtt s3. aud tbonGh t,.ere has never aince been
thre another ceesion 70 precisely tie same point,
na. has been Only because 30 person has there syei
trousaf that point IN que stion sg&i7.
ra -c3utrxt Of Judge holnpsoas opinion shows
that by the LATER authorities in England" &c
which o. refers, ne means, atSIns. nords; Carr
lls (shi,h was befo5s 6OOd,i:ie vs. Aiker;l Doc We
slap, Dreinf a1d 634; s.d Dee vs. tsc ksun.
Dow aud Ryi, So whlch ali only lag dowc'tile doc
irine hattie pisinii1 4 elecIent cannot recover,
ul!es. a. hes the isht of possession. Possibly thi.
soctr nc sy have set med }JudEST o;Inodsrn on
gen, bat ID is really cd az tbs action of e,ectmen,
tsels and when Goua'itle ys AiAer, was d. cideo
cspoi the Judges. Who had themselves. on the 25ti
dJa ius J, I7s7.c DcgIEed ia stating il epphar.
cally he care OF Atkins vs. Horde In truth
there coz even the lis htess somhiance ofa coin.
stcn - EN- t!dt doctrine ard HE doctrine 8 4
eunl s-itei bJ the same CourE In less than hall
wee eiters hrds thls 10 not already gu u1icieDtl
a4sn. 81 1t shalt lie be Iaade more manifest Pre-,
Sn,iT.
4. ne sid, X (the doctrine upon which the ieci
sou IL "a o4tite Va Aiser gToceeeod was not eva
Nih day ,n'iaered settled point; for the eout-
sci in the argument referred 10 case said TO have
Teen jecided by Lord Hardwieke in VII. .ch be H. lo
mat ao possession could be dslit cred OF the s Of
high ay ann therefore NJ sJeeinlent would lie 10,
NV, II is trEt, That ttR tsoodtitie vs Alker VISA
afcd o. fhs pcipt was Dot only net oonsde red b.
settle ut 10 Seh moreover positively consid. ry
10 10 20 sftIled no decision upon il hey,rg betr
ever p1rlSd 10 PRINT. OF gMihentieaily La mann.