Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-01-22
new registration Of the voters Of the
county Of Pulaski.
BY Mr.. Mayo: Bill for the relief Of
Isaac n. Bussells.

ny MT. Mayo: Dill lot the reiiei OF
Isaac n. Bussells.
RESOLUTION INTRODUCED AND RE-
| FERRED.
BY Mr.. Curlett Whereas the walks
around the Capitol are in such condi-
ton as 10 cause serious inconvenience
TO pedestrians, and especially to ladies
and children therefore
ReSCired (the Senate concurring),
That the Superintendent of Public
Buildings be, and, is hereby authorized
to cause said walks to be repaired as
speedily as possible provided, how
ever, that the cost of same shall not
exceed the sum Of 5000.
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
To amend and re-enact sections ,, 4,
and 9 of an act approved February %,
1884, entitled an act to establish cor
pOration court for the city of Roanoke.
To incorporate the Chesapeake Dry
Dock and Construction Company
with amendments.
| LOCAL OPTION.
Mr.. Loving moved to take up ont Of
its order House bill providing a gene
raj law under which counties, cities.
and districts may vote on local option.
lie stated that he was a friend of the
measure, and his purpose was to move
to recommit, so that errors in the bill
may be corrected. lie pointed out that
under this bill districts are allowed to
vote on this question if they vote,
then there is no need of the county
voting. Yet the bill provides that the
vote Of the county shall be taken.
To correct this Inconsistency the bill
will have to be amended in numerous
sections, and that can be done better in
committee than here.
Messrs. Mayo, Martin, Wescott, and
Thorne protested against recommttal
as involving a dangerous delay.
Mr.. Hay said he was opposed to the
bill out and out and to all such sump-
tuary laws.
The bill having been taken up, Mr..
Curlett moved to make it the special
order for the second Monday in Febru-
airy. Lost.
Mr.. Munford moved to make it the
special order for Tuesday next.
Mr.. Munford's motion was rejected
Mr.. Loving withdrew his motion.
Mr.. Curlett then moved to recommit.
Mr.. Pollard opposed the proposition.
If the bill is to be recommitted, let it
be after the objections to it have been
heard after members have expressed
their views; so that the committee will
have something to proceed on.
Mr.. Thorne protested against delay Of
any sort or in any shape. lie feared
that delay would kill the bill as it had
done four years ago.
Mr.. DarSt was a friend of the bill
and should vote for it when it came up
on its passage, but to harmonic the
views on this bill, he moved to post
pone and make it the special and con-
tinuing order for l.! o'clock Wednes-
day.
Agreed to.
RICHMOND SCHOOL BILL
On motion of Mr.. Starke, the House
consented to take up out of It's order
House bill giving the City Council and
its School Committee supervision Of the
city money expended for public schools.
Mr.. StaTke explained the bill, and it
was then ordered to engrossment with
out dissenting voice.
FINCH vs.. JONES.
This contested-electionc case was made
the special order Cor to-day at | clock.
DEBT BILL.
The debt bill (as to engraved sigma
lures, &C. presented by Mr.. \. Fulker-
son on behalf Of the special Joint COM
mittee on the debt was taken up on mo-
ton of Mr. Fulkerson.
Mr.. Buchanan explained the bill.
1t, in effect, throws upon people who
offer. coupons in court the burden of
proving the genuineness Of fac siWile
signatures, and as far as possible eX-
cludes expert testimony on this subject.
Nlr. Buchanan said that be drew the
bill. and he invited the free criticism Of
all the MEMBERSHIPS only object being
to get the best law obtainable on the
subject.
MIR. Fulkerson urged immediate &C
ton. So did Mr.. Mayo.
Mr.. Franklin said it was too impor-
iant a matter to be acted upon hastily.
lie moved to pass by. Rejected.
Mr.. Dabney (Nlr. Munford in the
chair wished to know who was to decide
whether the signature was written or
printed. Here Is an issue at once. He
indicated his purpose to offer an amend
ment on this point.
Mr.. Buchanan said there was force
in the objection OF Mr.. Dabney. lie
supposed the Court would have to de-
termine the issue, and in the usual way.
In view Of the urgent need for action
Mr.. Dabncy didno press his amendment I
and the bill was forthwith ordered to en-
grossment in the shape it was when 1t 1
came from the committee as follows:
NJ ACT TO AMEND AND RE-ENACr SECTION /
80 or CHATTER 1877. CODE I~7B,GN RE- /
IATION 10 RULES, PLEApfNG,. AND INt- /
DENCE, APPROVED JANUARY Il. 1856.
1. Be II su0cfed GDthe Ge0"rdt IysrHibiV of !
I'U0iHi0, That section 80 OF chapter 1877 or !
the Code ~ 1873, in relation TO rules plead /
iugs, aud evidence. he amended and re.en- /
acted 60 as TO read as follows:
80. Where bill. declaration. petition. |
or other pleading alleges that any person /
made, endorsed assigned, or accepted any |
writing. 10 proof Of the handwriting Of |
such person shall pe required unless the fact |
be denied by affidavit, with the answer |
plea, or other pleading which puts 10 IN |
ISSUE: provided that no such affidavit shall |
he required where the signature OF the |
maker, endOrser. asslgner, or acceptOr OF |
any paper is not in the personal hand |
writing OF the party To be charged, or his /
agent, but was made by machinery or in /
any other manner than by the actual or |
personal handwriting OF the party 10 be |
charged, or his agent. then In all such cases |
The burden Of proving such pager TO BE- |
genuine shall he upon the party relying |
upon the paper so offered TO be read IN evil /
dence: and u is further provided that ex- !
pert evidence shall not be received To prove /
the genuineneSs OF any paper or instrument |
made by machinery or IN any other man |
ner than by the actual or personal hand |
writing of the party To be charged, or his !
agent.
p All acts and parts OF acts inconsistent |