Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-12-14
OUR THOROUGHFARES.
SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT BEARING UPON STREET
INSTRUCTIONS.
A Judgment Given for Richmond in the
Bslyin Case -OpiRion Rendered In
the Manchsstsr. secoull Suit

were NrCsfHts JUDGES isNt1 III" 'ei''ft"'
absent several Of the opinions dealt with
tbs.bliqaflon OF municipalities 10 keep their
stseSs free from dangerous obsifucuon''
and 81 these the most interesting TO the
Richmond public is that oi Belvin against
this city, which grew on, of an accident that
happened 10 Mrs. Belvln in consequence OF
a ropr being stretched across tapitoi street
90 prevent vehicles from passing ana making
noise during the sessions of the hustngs
Court The oylniou. written by Judge
Lace va. handed down By President Lewis
sad reads p. follows;
TtiststwrIi NJ error 10 judgment OF the
C'fcDr Count Of tuc city a. Richmond reu-
dsrrd on tee fst dsy ~ December, 1887.
The case is as follows: Judge Atkins, the
Judge ~ tbe Husungs court Of the city Of
Richmond, who Nas holding his court IN the
luldfur need for that purpose, found him
sell aud bis court so annoyrd 10y The noise OF
passing yomcics along Capitol street, on
which The said building was located. thai be
caused ronc. 10 be stretched across tbs
street during The hour. when hi. court was
sitting each dav oi sitting. The ropes are
such D., arc commonly used 10 obstruct
streets when f0r any cause travel is 10 De sus-
pcnaod ont street power obtained from the
flty Engineer for the purpose. These
roDes wrrc IN iuc0nvcuicnce 20 the travel
Ing pubhc, who were thus compelled
so 20 around one square when 60
inr that wsv. so The city authorities
protested through The Mayor against
fho u.o ~ the ropes. but nevertheless they
were maintained bs the Court, and bad been
in nee Two YEARS. whom on The 2lst day ot
Fehruar,. 1887, The Plaintiffs vile wss
driving along Capitol street in top
buggy drawn by QUO horse, about
on . O'Clock IN The afternoon OF that
dsy. The jani'0r was IN The act oi
taking down one rope-the frat reached hv
The buggy. When ths plaintiffs vile came
up me ianiior said 70 her t0at he would let
her pass In moment, and then be took the
rone down. As she passed hc told his little
son % run up 10 the other rope and untaslen
that. The buggy reached this lasi rope
before The boy could take u doWo, and u be-
ing iu fuli view, 80 ihat It was seen by Wit
ness SIXTY wards OF. Tho plaintiffs wife be-
inP unable 20 pass the rope In tho MIDDLE OF
the street. where 70 hung lower than at the
ends. dfow thc horse 10 one side, and drove
20 the gutter close 10 the sidewalk, where
fhe rope was hung higher up. sud attempted
n drive under it, but the horses head struck
the rore and hc sfOpped. hut being urged
forward hc went under and the bugRy-top
was caught hv the rope the buggy upset,
and the plaintiffs vile thrown out and IN
iurcd 20 as 10 require the attention OF doc
Ton.
Tbis action was brought ihcTeup0n against
the civ for damages on account Of The in
iury received hv The plaiohG's wife. AT
the trial the Judge instructed the jury as
follows. "rhe court in-iructs the jury
that II they believe from the evidence that
the rope complained Of iu the declaration
was Iut there by the order oi the Judge OF
the Hastings Count FOR tho purposes set
forth in bis subsequent written order OF
July 3, lSs1. then they must ind Tor the
city of Richmond snd refused all Other
Instructions. and fhe plan'id excepted and
there being q verdict for the defendant and
motion 10 sot aside the same Ovcrruled
the plsintin applied Tor writ OF error 10
thi. court. which was awarded
We arc Of opinion that the instruction
given by the Circuit Count and excepted 10
bv the plaintiff is pliuly right The Judge
~ 'he Hustines Count oi The city OF Rich
m0nd is Judge oi state court OF equal
dignity WIN thc circuit courts OF the state.
Ia tie administration Of Justice In that court
The said Judge is charged with the prescrya-
fon of order 100 Die court and 90 see 10 II mat
th. due administration a Justice IL noi OLE
Nructcd bv any person or persons whctso-
ever. and 90 mi. end he may ughtiully sum-
~ the Commonwealth. lie had certified that
tho passing oi vehicles toand fro ON Capitol
street iu irontof the courtroom Of his count
during ihe Nitngof ms court 0bstrucied the
proper administration 90 justice therein. II
this was So, aud that such was The case is not
deu,sd and ls no doubt perfectly true. then
either the court room should hay, been re-.
moved or the travel II these vehicles
stopped during TIE sitting Of this court,
which latter Involved no great hardship, u
recurring only a short drive TO pass around
on the other side ot the square. But, how
ever this may be, It IS perfectly clear that
he city had no agency in The matter.
The city, through ils highcst officer, had
entered its protest against the oDsiructieni
hut the Judge. regarding tho due admins
fration of Justice ~ more importance than
the use OF tie c1rriaec-way ~ few yards
during portion oi each day, refused 70 re-
move the ropes. The city could do no more
unless it had instituted legal proceedings
about the mater The city was certainly
poWer'ess 10 remove the ropes, being, like
all ether persons, hound by the orders OF the
Court uutN reversed hy some competent
tribunal The ropes being oulg used In day.
light, aud being Of size sufficient, with white
n1cs attached 10 the middle, were such oh
vious distractions as not 10 suggest danger
20 any bat the blind, and the matter OF cons
vtnieuce appears 90 De small n comparison
to the rights involved IN the due admins
,.a,ion Of Justice in such a court rs
ihis 70 would be q farce 60 enter upon
trial " the rights OF aclulen, either oi person
or of property, and 20 take thc evidence De-
fore the tricrs oi the fact under such circuni-
stance. that the final arhitcrs could not hear
What the evidence was, such would be
mock trial and q moot court. No Judge
should be expected 10 hold a court under
-uch cirrumIauces. IL is said that II ts the
duty of tac city 90 provide a suitable court
house. That may Doe admitted; and there IL
no reason 10 believe tnat the city OF klch'
mona will not 80 provide such suitable
place a, soon as il may be done.
This disposes 81 the case, but n that Ques-
ton arose u appears that the accident, which
is much 20 ne regretted, ssit hurt lady and
lutie child. resulted not irom The isult OF
tte clty or the iiuSungs Court Judge, but
the mpudeuce aud incSutlou OF the lady
who in trying 20 pass under this rope doubt
less iosgoi that the buggy top was up, and
was higher than her head, which safely
PISSED under the rope, which struck the
buggy ton without striking her. the iudg-
mcni OF the CiIcuit Court Of Richmond Is
plainly right and must be affirmed.
oTuEE vItws.
Judge Fauntleroy said IL IS true this is
c1.e of cOutrhutory negligence, inasmuch
as the evidence shows that while the horse
was backing from the rope Mrs. Belyin de-
loersteiy urged him forward. Judge Atkins
ytfg properly had the street tied mp, but the
ciiy oi Richmond should have exercised some
precautions. 10 should have stationed there
ore oi q police s'audlng around loose on
cxtioiuou. ." or by some other means eXer-
cised due diligence 10 have warned OF peo-
pie.
Judge Hinton said he concurred in the
Judgment. not because OF ihe order, but BE-
cause oi contrbutory negligence.
Judge Lewis toucuired IN the opinion.
The order was necessary % secure the ouiet
essential to the proper administration OF pub
ile justic. Judge Atkins, without consult
ior any body. bad the authority 10 put Tho
rope up. aud The city was not responsible
therefor. lodees, bad the Mayor or police
goDs there 90 take down the rope. the judge
would have been justified in putting them Ia
JAIL, and no doubt would haYe done So Ills
ior judge toeNercise s reasonable discretion
Ia csses such rs this; and 40 general rule