Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-02-06

The Court oVerruled tho otjcotio! an'' ~
Gefensc excepted to the iutroduc:inn Ct Tx
paper.
4. s. Lcaabeatcr reca!lcd-The paper pre-
seu,ed was, he believed, the original articles
association. lis signature vas Scuulnr. gu
he did not know whether the paper had Dtet
sisned in duplicate or not, but thought not, 81
be had no recollection CT 80 doing
Mr.. johnson rc&d ho constitution It The
Association.
Il. S. LeadheGttr resunlng, testified thai
the paper had not, 50 far Is he knew. beer
recorded 10 Alexandra county, nor had any
business been done, out OF the city. No ap'
pcatious had been received from Alexandria
county or Fairfax, and consequently there was
no occasion to make loans.
At this point the Court took rec 81 until
three o'clock.
Upon the r, assembling Of the Court,
MIR. Burke proceeded to argue the objection
to the paper pTcsentei as the constitution OF
the Association. lie c>utendcd that the con-
stitution was 10 conlraveDtina OF the State law
10 several particulars. aGd that the conditions
precedent, required BIZ the act OF Assembly. had
not been complied with. and that the testimony
of MIR. LeadbcatCr showed the fact. 1t these
were the facts theu The Indictment must TALL,
because it charged that The Association WAS
duly chartered.
Judge Lowe asked if there was any evidence
of the corporators other than those named 10
the paper presented, having signad the articles
Of Incorporation.
MIR. ohnson said he knew OF none. lie con.
tended, however, that the signatures were suf.
fcient.
Mr. Stuart commended that the law required
that, in order to constitute larceny, the goods
alleged to be stolen must be the property OF
some one There was no evidence here to
show that there was any corporation uoder the
law, and GOOSE qucntly it could not legally hold
irhe articles Of agreement contained
an avoWal of intention to do business in three
separate jurisdictions and must consequently
record its ;articcs in all Of those Jurisdictions.
The mere accidental fact that nobody outside
Of the city bad applied for loans, was no reason
why the law should not be complied with. The
Association could not be divided. If it was
corporation in the city, it must be one 10 any
portion of the Commonwealth.
The case was 10 progress when this report
,losed.
The MARROW GAUGE RAILROAD The
Washington Union says:
A committee consisting Of Mr.. Adams, the
contractor ofthe new narrow gauge railroad.
md MIR. Clark, prominent stockhoder ana
iii cial in the company, called upon Mr.. Joseph
of Georgetown, Monday night They
lsd long conference with that gen,leman. and
hey make tho following propositions: If the
itzens will make q subscription of $4,000 the
ity will be allowed TO appoint a director and
he treasurer Of the company. One. fourth of
he money is to be paid when the road is graded
rom this CITY to Fairfax Court house. distance
f fifteen miles one-fourlh when thu cars run
0 Falls Church. eight miles from the Aqueduct
ridge; one.fourth when the cars run to Fair.
ax Court house. and the remaining quarter
hen the railroad crosses the Potomac river and |
terninsl depot is made here. Nearly all the
armers through whose farms the proposed road |
to run have guaranteed froe right Of way to |
,e company. Subscription papers will soon be |
laced in the hands of prominent bas!ness men,
nd if enough interest i! Is maniiestea IN Inc pro-
!et a public meeting will be called.