Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-16
RULE AGAINST JUDGE.
THE SUPREME COURT ISSUES ITS PRO-
CESS AGAINST HIS HONOR OF
LYNCHBURG.
A Number Of Opinions Rendered Yester.
day-The Late Alexander
Il. Sands.

ODOn lhO ltAitiOl4 vi tuO hNtOlhNN
General the Supreme Court OF Appeals
yesterday entered an order prohibiting
the Hon. c. p. Latham, Judge of the
Corporation Court of the city of Lynch
burg, from further proceeding to hear
and determine the injunction suit pend
ing in said court in which VI. h. Jones is
plaintiff and NJ. J. Day, sergeant of the
city OF Lynchburg, is defendant, and it
is ordered that the said Hon. G. Z.
Latham, Judge of the Corporation Court
of the city of Lynchburg, and W. Fl.
Jones, after being served with q copy OF
this order md of said petition, appear
here on the 22d day of March, 1883, and
show cause, if any they can, why the
Commonwealth writ of prohibition
should not be awarded prohibiting the
said W. II. Jones from prosecuting and
the said G. p. Latham from further pro-
ceeding to try and determine said in
junction suit against the said NJ. j. Day,
sergeant.
This ls a controversy growing out
of a tender Of coupons for the Com
monwealth's costs in a case in which
the Supreme Court reversed the judg-
ment of the Corporation Court OF
Lynchburg. The sergeant refused
TO take the coupons. Jones there
upon got from Judge Latham an injUnc-
tion to prevent the sergeant from levying
The sergeant demurred to tho bill, but
this the Court Ovcrruled. The sergeant
thereupon moved that the cause be re-
moved to the Circuit Court of Richmond,
which motion was likewise overruled
And so the petitioner comes to the Su-
preme Court and claims that "the said
Court has no jurisdiction to grant an In-
junction to enjOin or otherwise suspend
or affect any Judgment or decree on be-
half of the Commonwealth or any eXecu-
tion issued on such Judgment or decree.
Your petitioner represents that under the
fourth clause of the first section OF chap
ter l65, Code of Virginia, edition of 1873.
exclusive original jurisdiction iscOnferred
upon the Circuit Court of the city Of
Richmond IN all such cases"
CASES DECIDED.
Savage against the Commonwealth.
From the County Court OF Accomack.
Reversed, Judge Lewis delivering the
opinion.
Beecher against Lewisand Bagby, trus-
tees. From tue Circuit Court OF King
William county. Affirmed, Judge Lacy
delivering the opinion.
Lackland and ais against Davenport
and at. From the Circuit Court of
i5otetourt county. Affirmed, Judge
Fauntleroy delivering the opinion
Judge Richardson dissenting.
Young against Town of Boydton.
From Circuit Court of Mecklenburg
county. Affirmed, Judge Hinton deliv-
ering opinion; Judge Fauntleroy dis
scntln2.
Kirby against Kirby. From the Cir
cult Court of Halifax county. Reversed,
Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Ruckers administrator against Moss
and aie. From the Corporation Court
of Lynchburg. Reversed in part and
affirmed in part, Judge Lacy delivering
opinion.
Griffin against Birkhead. From the
Circuit Court of York county. Reversed.
Judge Fauntloroy delivering the opin-
ion; Judges Lewis and Lacy not sit
ting.
Hreeman's administrator against Nor
folk and Western Railroad Company.
Writ of error refused to judgment rem
dered by the Circuit Court of Smyth
county.
Smith against Commonwealth. Writ
of error refused to judgment OF the Cir
cult Court of Henry county.
Carr's administrator against Morris.
Further argued by Judge William j.
Robertson and submitted.
Smith against Waugh. Argued by
Colonel W. W. Gordon for appellant
Mr. W. ". Henry offered resolutions
Of the Bar Association Of the city of
Richmond relative to the death of the
late Alexander II. Sands, which we're
ordered by the Court to be spread upon
tine record. In presenting the resolu
tons Mr.. Henry paid handsome tribute
to the memory OF the deceased.