The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-11-21
Letacr from Saasant0n.
Correspondence Of the Richmond Dispatch.l
pEclsloNs BY THE SUPREME COURT.

SrAuNToN. November 20, 1874.
In the Supreme Court on yesterday deci.
sionS were rendered as follows:
In Kelley Us. Larguey's administrator, on
appeal from Circuit Court Of Allegheny, the
decision Of the court below was affirmed.
Judge Moucure delivered the opinion OF
four judges, Judge Bouldin dissenting. The
majority Of the court held that there was a
partnership, and that it came properly
within the jurisdiction of chancery court,
a community in profits being sufficient to
constitute partnership, although the pro.
ifs consisted of commissions on amounts
disbursed. The second question was whe.
ther receipt produced by the defendant
was applicable to amounts claimed BY the
plaintiff. on estimates from September,
1855, to March, 1856 liz there were
any. The majority of the court held
that it must be taken for granted that these
estimates had been made; and If not, it de-
volved upon the defendant to show that
fact; aud not having done so, they held
that the receipt was TO be applied to these
estimates. On this point Judge Bouldin
diSsented. holding that it was the duty of
the plaintiff to make out his case by show
inc that these estimates had been made, and
that therefore the court erred in affirming
the decision below instead Of demanding it,
to allow the plaintiff to prove his case.
In Lavelle Us. Colds administrator, from
the Circuit Court of Rockbridge, Judge An
derSon delivered the opinion Of the court.
In this case there had been awarded an issue
out of chaucery on which the verdict was
for the defendant, and the chancellor set
aside the verdict and awarded q new trial.
A succeeding chancellor set aside that order,
and third one decreed in favor of the de-
teudant, as if the verde. had never been set
aside. The Court held thar the first chancel.
| lor had the power to set aside the verdict OF
| the jury and award new trial, and that the
Virginia Code did not take from him this
power, although he was the same judge be.
| fore whom the issue out of cbancery had
| been tried; and further held that it was not
competent for succeeding chancellor, with
out sufficient reason appearing on the record,
| TO set aside the action Of the previous chan
cellor and decree upon the verdict. The de.
ciSion of the lower court was reversed, with
costs, and the cause remanded.
In Burnett and wife Us. Hawpe'S executor,
| from the Circuit Court of Augusta, Judge
Staples delivered the opinion of the court.
| In this case the Court held that married
woman, as to her separate estate, is to be
considered as a .fcme sole, and unless re-
| stricted by express terms, or by necessary
implication in the instrument creating such
estate, may dispose of it absolutely, if per-
| Soral property. or Of the rents and profits
| if real estate, either by charging it for her
self or as surety for another, even though
| that other be her husband, and may even
give it to him, provided no undue influence
| is used. And when she executes an obi.
CATION, whether as principal or surety, for
her husband, or a stranger, she must be
presumed to do so with the intention OF
charging her separate estate. The decree OF
| the court below was affirmed.
In the case of Hansborough and wife Us.
Stennett, from the Circuit Court of Bote'
tourt, Judge Anderson delivered the opin-
4 ion of the court reversing the Judgment be-
| low. This was an action for SANDER at COM
mon law in which the words must impute
| crime liable to be punished in the temporal
courts, and the words must be set out in the
| ayerment and colloquium, and the innuendo
cannot enlarge the meaning of the word:
and colloquium. Unless the words thus ex
planned do not mpute such crime, they
are not actionable at common law.
| The motion for rehearing in the case Of
Hahn's administrator Is. Roller, which wa:
argued at the last session here and decided
| in Richmond, was overruled. MAX.