The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-12-12
Circuit Court-Interestine Decisions.

|
presiding-commence its fall term on the
LIST day of November, and'has been in SEES
sion continuously since. During that time
the amount of business disposed of Is simply
immense. The efficient and energetic clerk,
j. N. Ryan, Esq, and his valuable deputy,
Mr.. B. F. Terry, and assistant. F. Francis
co, have been kept busy day and night ia Or
der to prevent an accumulation on their
hands. Besides other matters disposed OF
there have been about four hundred DEGREES
| entered, and when it is remembered how vel
few of Judge McLaughlin's decisions are re-
versed, the magnitude of the work accom-
plished can be more readily apprehended.-
Upon each case careful thought and study Is
bestowed, and the decision reached is gener-
ally accepted as final. Comparatively few
cases from this county are taken up to the
Supreme Court, experience having attested
that in nearly every instance the Judgment
of the lower Court is affirmed. Not only
has this long list of DEGREES been recorded,
but executions have issued and the clerks
work kept fully abreast of the transactions
of the Court. We doubt il in any other
county Of the State legal bushes is disposed
of with such expedition.
Among the decisions rendered at this term
were two of considerable Importance to the
citizens of Staunton.
| The first was In the Injunction case OF the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad vs.. the City OF
Staunton. Last year, the B. & O. r. r. es-
tablished an express line, having one OF its
offices in Staunton. Under an ordinance OF
the city, Express companies are charged a
license tax of $l75. The Treasurer present.
ed the bill. and payment was refused, where
upon he proceeded to levy on the personal
property of the Company, and an injunc-
ton was gotten out restraining him. The
case then went to the Circuit Court. Tht
counsel for the plaintiff maintained that the
B. 6 D. r. r. Co. was not an ''Express"
Company within the scope and meaning OF
the ordinance Of the city under which tile
tax was assessed; that that ordinance APP
piled only to such companies as are chartered
or organized for the purpose OF transporting
express matter, employing therefor the IA
cilities OF railroad companies or other car
riers, and not to railroad companies doing
| simply the business of common carriers. The
B. & O. r. r. was corporation chartered
under the laws Of Maryland. and was the
lessee of the Manassas Gap r. R.. and BY
certain arrangements operating the Valley
Branch. 1t was entitled BY its contracts and
arrangements with the several railroad com
panies to all the rights, privileges, franchise
and immunities conferred by the statutes
of Virginia upon companies operating with
| in the limits OF the State. and the express
business was no less a part OF the railroad
| business than was its passenger, stock, coal.
or other business. The right of the city OF
Staunton to impose taxes is limited by its
charter to such subjects as are taxed by the
State, and no such tax is imposed by the
State.
The Counsel for the city answered that
the B. & O. r. R. was not, during the time
for which the tax in question was assessed.
owner or even lessee Of that portion OF the
Valley r. r. between Harrisonburg and
Staunton; that during the time the Company
had place OF business In Stanton, In con-
nection with the express business it was con.
Quoting over the line OF the Valley road, Il e
last named road was under the management,
control and operation OF Its own Company,
and not of the B. & o. r. R., and that.
therefore, the B. G. o. Company could nsr
conduct over the Valley line, without pay
ing license tax, the EXPRESS business whici.
the laws of the State allow chartered Virgin
la roads to do over their own lines.
Judge Mclaughlin gave judgment in favor
of the city. Shelley & Bumgardner for the
& o. r. R., Major Elder for the city.
The circumstances of the second ease were
about as follows: In 1874 the City Counc'
passed an ordinance authorizing the grad.
ing, matchmaking, gu,tering and paving OF
Main street from Lewis to Market, AM
charged the property owners along the lin
with one-half the expense. At the meeting
at watch the improvement was ordered, there
were only seven out of twelve members oil tn.
Council present, and the ordinance wa
passed by the unanimous vote Of the seven
the property owners resisted the payment Of
| their assessments, and an injunction wa
gotten out by DR.. VIM. Chapman and 9th
ers, restraining the levying of the execution
that had issued. The case was taken to thu
Circuit Court, and after several trials am
amended bills, Judge Mclaughlin decided
against the city, for the reason that the or
dinance providing for the improvement wal
In violation of the 26th section Of the char
ter, there having been only seven council
men voting for it, when at least nine wer'
necessary. The section of the charter gov
erning the case is as follows:
"Whenever any new street shall be lait
out, street graded or paved, a culvert built
or any other improvement whatsoever made
the council shall determine what part, II any
of the EXPENSES thereof shall be paid out o
the city treasury, and what portion By tn
owners of real estate benefited thereby
But no such public improvement shall b.
ma lie to be betrayed in whole or In part BY
local assessment until first requested BY
petition signed by at least a majority Of tn
| nSoSooSo SN~~'
improvements, or unless at least three
fourths of all the council! shall concur. in vot
ing any improvements to be expedient. or ii
determining to make the same after allega
tions have been heard In which case no pc
tition or request shall be necessary"
Under this decision the owners of proper
ty along the Main street improvement
will be relieved of the assessment, an
to those who have already paid, the amount
wilt doubtless be REFUNDED. The plaintiff
were represented by Shelley & Bumgardnel
and the city by Major Elder.
Quite number of interesting decisions
were rendered, among them that of Lobde
and others vs.. McComb, an important cas-
involving questions Of partnership, which wa
I removed from Shenandoah. Judgment wa
: given in favor OF the plaintiff. The case wi
, be taken to the Supreme Court.
A decree Of divorce. a vinculo matrimoni
was granted Frank Poindexter from his wife
Ann V. Poindexter, and the latter prohbite
from marrying during the lifetime Of tn
former.