Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1860-05-16
CITY ITEMS.


r-...-ov OY rHE TwELFrH SrsEEr DISTRACTION CAST.
~. Ssprcme Court Of Appeals unanimously decided,
..f,v shat the Mayor could not fine Messrs War
gi-ksdslc for obs rucug portion Of 9Th street
'. crce The history Of tins case Is briefly this .-
,,s1tv wears ago W. q b. purchased lot from the
- River and ksnawha Company, portion Of which
'..l As public street, and had been used for an
,-.,l leugth Of time The city resisted their claim
.ll.ive possession OF the property and an action
..-..1teI by W. x b. TO establish their title After
NJ litigation during which W. a b paid taxes an
r 81, le citv on the contested lot the circuit Court
-eo decided in their favor and in accordance With
s-rrert fence erected enclosing tWO-thirls of
i3fh of the former highway, south Of Cary street
m sci Tor the city failed 20 appeal from the decision
-s Court and thus precluded direct settlement Of
.,s,-iou of ownership by the Court Of Appeals
ne fence was erected on list Janulry so, and shortly
go. tbe Nsyor imposed 6ne OF sen on W. 4 B for
~ .-.-sd gi,ttou Of city ordinance, by obstractug
street, W s B through their counsel lMessrs
,Il-r4ri Is Roberts and n r Howard applied TO the
.-. Court OF Richmond for writ Of prohibition 70
.,r the MAYOR FROM imposing said 6ne judge Mer-
49, refused award said writ and sustained the CITY
..5--,,'- demurrer 90 the declaration filed by W 4 B.
y t.s was then taken % the Court of Appeals and bv
. decision rendered Yesterday, the judgment of the
r., Court is rsuersed The opinion Of the Court
doses ls iouoasi-
-lI.s from the foregoing examination Of the oues-
ans D.e,en,cd. tb1t In proceeding cOnvic; SUMMARY
fre Justice Of the peace, other officer eNprcis-
. bowers. 10 clam 20 the freehold is set up Ia the
F,n- or those for whom be acts the officer has
t.,..r 90 trv o. f-ct whether the claim is bona f}s
fs I|fr Doe so made Che j,0isiicfi0H IS 0l,isi hc
- ell lure into the validity of the claim aud he has
~ rlesr ia such case. 20 proceed 70 a summary con-
..rr That che doctrine applies as we'll 20 the case
~ al iucorporeal beredit iment or real franchise is
sf ,- resisted %, 90 controversy touching the free
t.irsgt
r...fHs recovery on eiectment by the Judgment re-
,f t1 aa~ subject 90 any easement I'm the public use
, ..-e "a, % street or highway, and the right OF the
.-. Co use the easement, was not drawn To question
p r suy way affected by CONTROVERSY between the
saH- and Che city 90 the ownership Of the soil
D.. tlt under ibr SECOND csuse assigned On the Geca.
..r DO appears there vas bona fts claim To- the "a
.re gu. oymeat Of the property Tree from the right
.r or es-. ueut caimed by the public and that such
linn So made could not be tried by the Mayor but
.f Hf. ..rslict'og IL is % be regretted that in
....r where the public convenience is much uvov-
tf.e r..Ht t0 the easement itself hal not been
.tei either by action Oftespass against the city
critics. i0g removing toe obstruction or some pre-
.g Co a1aJe the alleged nuisance, that the right
t lave been settled by court OF record having con-
.s-. authority The question before rs does not
-.. te merits but merely the power Of the Maycr
81. INQUIRE into them. The Judgment must De reversed
I. eIcc. Of this decision viii be- we presume the
s-ate still further, &c direct the Mayor TO demol-
destruction and thus pave Che way Tor an action
-.sra, Bat tae better plan, think Is TO sckuow-
.. ~ s. b IS right 10 Che soil, aud condemn the dspu-
% To-. ty Che U-ul. process.