The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-10-07

rOu OF IFOIs Auu WHY 0HHpAy oSS'~.'SO 49, '
had the gift of CAB, and knew full well wheI
and where to pull the reins. 1t is only the Old
old farce which the people insist on re-enac.
ting each year, and which must always leave
them shorn of their individuality, anC
the servants of few wire pullers. How many
of the county delegates went home satisfied
Not one fourth, and yet they had it in their
they again consent to be thus cheated OF their
vote? We certainly hope not.
SUPREME COURT OF APEALs.-The follow
ing are the proceeding of the the Supreme
Court of APPEALS since our last issue:
THURSDAY SEPTEMBER &c. 1875.
Bernard Peyton, Robert L. Harrison, J. r.
Tucker, Jr., ..and Rudolph S. Turk, Esqrs..
/ qualified as counsel in this court
! Peters VS.. Neville's Trustees ct al. Decree
Of the Circuit Court of Nelson county amend
ed and affirmed. Judge Moncnre delivering
opinion of the court. Coghll and Fitzpatrick
for appellant. Thompson, Cabell and White
| head for appellees.
Swisher VS.. Commonwealth. Judgment OF
| Circuit Court of Rockbridge county affirmed.
/ Judge Christian delivering opinion of majority.
ion. J. R. Tucker, Anderson and Williams
for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General
for the Commonwealth.
Nundy's Ex'rs VS.. Peters surviving part
ner &c. Dismissed.
Switzer ct al. VS.. Switzer ct al. Decree of
Circuit Court of Augusta county affirmed
Judge Staples delivering opinion of the court.
Stuart for appellant. Sheffey & Bumgardner
for appellees.-
Reals Admir- VS.. Trotter & Bro. Judgment
Circuit Court of Frederick county reversed
Judge Moncure delivering opinion of the court.
Conrad for plaintiff in error. Williams and
Williams for defendants in error.
Evans VS.. Pettyjohn. Judgment of the Cir
cult Court of Amherst county affirmed. Judge
Christian delivering opinion of the court. Cog
hill for plaintiff in error. Charles Mundy,
Esq, for defendant in error.
Craun VS.. Picker. Judgment of Circuit
of Rockingham county reversed and remand
ed. Judge Anderson delivering opinion Of the
court Roller for appellant. Compton for ap-
pellee.
Meade VS.. Grigsby's Adm'rs ct al. Decree
OF Circuit Court OF Clarke county reversed
Judge Staples delivering opinion Of the court.
Parker, cambridge and Pendlcton for appel
liant. Mai Conrad for appellees.
Sipe vs. Earman ct al. Decree OF Circuit
court Of Rockingham county affirmed in part
and reversed in part. Judge Anderson deliver
4 ing opinion of the court Roller for appellant
| Sheffey & Bumgardner and Berlin for appel
4 lees.
FRIDAY OCTOBER l, 1875.
| wager VS.. Commonwealth. Writ Of error
dismissed
Mesmer VS.. Commonwealth. Writ Of error,
etc., to Judgment of Hastings CouIt of City of
Winchester Argued by Gen'l Williams for
plaintiff in error, and the Attorney General for
the Commonwealth and submitted.
Crawford vs. Shower ct al. Rule awarded
at last term. Discharged and case continued
until next term.
Cameren's Adm'x VS. Goodies Exors ct al
Further argued by Judge Robertson for Goodies
Executors, and continued until tomorrow
morning.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1879.
Coles vs. Shepherd. Superscdeas to decree
of Circuit Court Of Albemarle county. Dis
missed on motion of appellants counsel.
Camcron's Adm'x vs.. Goodies Ex'rs ct al
! Argument concluded by j. r. Tucker, Esq
10: appellant and submitted.
TUESDAY,, OCTOBER 5, 1875.
w. G. Clopton, Esq, qualified as counsel
| WEDNESDAY, oCTOBBRR 6, 1873.
Donallv VS.. Boyd's< Admir- ct al. Appeal
from decree of Circuit Court of Rockbridge
county Submitted by appellants COUNSEL
Price, Echols, Bell 6 Catlett for appellant.
Hess ct al VS. RAIDER and wife ct al. Appeal
from decree of Circuit Court of Augusta colln
ty. Submitted upon printed arguments. Fultz
for appellant Shelley & Bumgardner for ap
pellees.
Rapp ct al vs. Ayres. Rule awarded against
the plaintiffs in error to show cause why this
cause should not be dismissed because of fail
nre to pay cost of printing record.
Maury VS. Chesapeake and Ohio Railoau Com
pany. Upon an appeal from Circuit Court Of
Rocbridge county. Argued by J. r. Tucker
Esq, for appellant and Thomas D. Ransom
Esq, for appellee.
DECISIONS.
The following are synoDses of the decisions
rendered in the cases mentioned. The re
naming decisions will be published in our mex
issue:
sw1rzER VS.. swITzER.-Deed Of separa
ration 6et,veen Husband and W;fe-How fa
uaha IN Virginia. First case Involving thi
question. Deed recites that, irreeoncilable diff
ferences having arisen between them, render
ing it impossible for them to live together az
man and wife should, they proposed to live
separated and apart by agreement. rather thai
seek relief by divorce. There were covenants
by the husband with the trustee to renounc
all marital rights; all control of the wife per
son and all claims to her earnings. The wifi
surrenders all rights to the custody and contro
of the children. She then conveys lands deri
we'd by descent from her parents to the truste
upon trust to permit the husband to occup,
them during his life, and st his death to conve.
them to the children of the marriage.
In consideration of this, husband covenants
to deliver to trustee, annually for the wife 8
bushels of whea5, 80 bushels of corn, and 25
pounds pork, and sells to trustee for her bene
fit horse, buggy and harness, COW, and Ger
tain articles of household and kitchen furniture
OF inconsderable value. Beyond this, the wifi
!, to have no claim on the husband or his estate
and lien was retained on the land to secur
the delivery of the grain, &c. On a bill filet
by the wife to vacate the settlement and be re
stored to her rights i'll the land conveyed
Court held, after a review Of the English an
American decisions, showing that such deed
were only upheld when there was all immed
ate separation, made with the intervention of
trustee, and then only so far as to enforce an
covenants made by the husband with trustee
for his wfe's maintenance, or covenants by til
trustee to indemnify the husband against liza
bility to others for her. or claims by her. Il
this case, there was no question in relation t
any covenant by the husband for the benefit o
the wife, through the intervention Of trustee O
: otherwise, but solely with reference to al
agreement on her part for the conveyance o
her Inheritance, for the benefit of her HUSBAND
and the children of the marriage Is such al