The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-04-05
PETERSBURG.


land SALE--ARRIvAL OF AN ESCAPED BUR.
GLAR-- INTERESTING CASE - SYNOPSIS or
s1-pGE MANN'S DECISION IN Tue CASE or
ATKINS BROTHERS VS.. TaE PETERSBURG
RAILROAD COMPANY.
It,orr,,pondeucc OF the Richmond Ds,eatchl
ArRlI. 4. 1877.
The Olive Hill farm, in Chesterfield
county. near this city, owned by Mr.. T. j.
Gates. containing 260 acres, was sold ut auc-
ton this afternoon, Mr.. ". 4. Harrison be-
coming the purchaser AT $500.
The Hi@h-ConStable arrived from Nor
folk this morning with prisoner named
William Cowlcs (colorcd), who IS charged
with burglary recently committed here.
The >torchousc Of Mr.. Joel Watkins was
broken into on the 9th OF March, and va
rious articles and twenty-five dollars in mo-
ncy stolen. The prisoner, who was sus-
pcc.cd. escaped to Norfolk, where he was
arrested on n charge OF stealing watches and
sentenced "a six months In the chain-gang.
hayor Tucker, however, surrendered him
to bc tried here far felony.
\ case Of some interest, because Of very
unusual character. happened day or two
ago in Prince George county. 4 colored
man named Lovelacc Madison was arrested
for settling woods on tire near Disputanta
station, and carried before a magistrate.
The burning Of woods was the result Of
accident, the fire having escaped from the
prisoners place. where he was burning
brush. The magistrate ordered him t,ce,-
tp-fTs 'aShCS. and the sentence was duly ex-
ecuted. Madison has employed counsel to
bring suit against the county for unlawful
whipping, and il is understood the matter
will be vigorously prosecuted. lie at first
resisted the Judgment OF the Court, but was
finally persuaded by his wife to submit.
The matter has caused considerable COM
mcnt. and ii is thought that had time al
lowed the prisoner would have been res
cued hg his friends before the whipping
took place.
The faiinre OF the bill locating the Cen
trail Lnua:ic Asylum is much regretted here.
Jones Garter (white). who was some time
ago ordered thirty-ninc lusheS in Prince
George county and sentenced to Jail for six
months Tor larceny, has appealed from the de-
ciSion OF the justices. The laShes have been
administered. and tie prisoner has already
served out six or eight weeks OF his SEN
tcncc.
The Council will meet tonight to consider
&n ordinance imposing and collecting taxes
on licenses for this year. The old ordinance
will probably he adopted with Slight changes.
The congregation OF Wesley Methodist
eide upon Il site for their proposed new
cditcc and to marguerite steps to build 1t.
a liberal gentleman in that section OF the
city has offered TO donate an eligible lot for
the church near the present site.
The following Is 2 condensed synopsis OF
Judge Mann's decision in the garnishee case
Of Atkins Brothers rs. The Petersburg Rail-
road Company, heretofore referred to in the
Dispatch:
AN;j,,s ErotherS rs. The Petersburg Rail
rood Company. Upon suggestion as.
The. Treasurer and Ticket agent Of the De-
PENDANT Company.
The plaintiff in this case having obtained
Judgment and execution against the defend
ant Tor the sum OF S20,J06.02, sued cut
process Of garniShment against L. NJ. Sully,
General Freight Igcnt; w. y. Taylor, Ired-
eirsr. and ". II. Brown. Ticket agent OF
said company. at its principal office in Pc
tcr>hurg. suggesting that by reason OF their
writ Of teri tGciu.S there was 4 liability on
them for moneys, &c, in their hands re-
spectiyelv. belonging to the defendant COM
pany. In obedience to said process the
parties appeared and filed their answers,
W. p. TAYLOR and w. II. Brown admitting
that they had moneys belonging to the de-
fendant, which they held only in their otii-
ca! capacity As treasurer and ticket agent
OF said company, respectively.
The statute under which this proceeding
is had provides that son L suggestion OF
this iudcmcnt-debtor that by reason OF the
lien OF his writ Of teri fucidS there is liza
biity on any nerson other than the judgment
.1cbto.. summons may be sued out" &c
TScc Code OF 1873, section II, chap
ter 1871 Section -, same chapter, pro-
vdes: 1.-The person summoned shall be eX-
amned on oath. If it appear on such eX-
animation that there is any such liability
on him the court may order him to pay any
debts or deliver any estate for which there
is such liability
The statute clearly indicates that the pro-
eeeding OF punishment must be against
third persons.
The simple but important and interesting
ouestion for the consideration Of the court
in this case is. Whether or not the treasurer
and ticket agent OF this company, with refer
rncc to this case, are third persons, or DO
they stand in such relation to the company
As that their garniShment is IN fact but the
.-arnlshnlent Of the defendant company
itself.
This question has been much discussed in
cases before the Supreme Courts OF the
States having statutes practically similar to
ours, and there is some conflict OF authority
between the adiudcatcd cases.
The first case which we find on this qucs-
ton was decided in 1853 by the Supreme
Court OF Pennsylvania. Vide Fowler and
as rs. The Pittsburgh, Fort wayne and
Chicago Railroad Company, 50 Penn. 81.
Reports, page -
In this case ticket agent OF the company
was garnishcd for money which be held in
his hands as agent Of the company-a case
precisely similar to the one at bar. 1t was
there held that ticket agents cannot be treated
az third persons, SO far as money received
by them on the sale OF tickets to passengers,
sc. Says the Court: ''Thcsc ticket agents.
are the very hands OF the company. 1t cam
not do its business without them; and il an
attachment execution is TO be regarded as
arreS,ing money received after its service,
il would always OCCASION the dismissal OF
such agents in order TO prevent such re-
suit The next case, in point of time, was
decided by the Supreme Court OF Alabama,
in 1859. Vide "Central Plank-Road COM
pany rs. Sammons & Dotcs, q Alabama
Reports, page 1901 In this case tollgate-
keeper OF the company was garnished for
debt due by the defendant company, and
the Court held that, as such agent, he was
liable 10 garnlshment. ~"'..
Chiffon, c. j., delivering the opinion OF
the Court, says: .+'''. 49,. ',.
Without intending to decide that there
NAV not be cases OF simple bailment where
the subiect-mattcr may be the subject Of
punishment, We are OF opinion that this Is
not one Of them. The garnishee in this, case
Anoe ,>ot 1itirr materially from any other