Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-01-11
POINTS FOR LAW YERS.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEALS YESTERDAY.
A Number Of Decisions Rendsred-A Great
Case Now On Triai-6rand
Array OF Counsel

case a. VIII ms ". The Nommonwcaths
from the Corporation Court OF Alexandria.
said he:
rso casc wa not argued bere by The At
,..r,,e .Ccocraf no stated that be doubted
tto nrorristv of enc action OF the judge OF
o.s,fi Cornoraiion Court in the msiter set
t.-,i, In nc ninth bil ~ exceptions, but
I'D submit the question for The Courts
d.ri.ioo eblch Is NJ follows "Thst after
a.. evidence and Arguments OF counsel the
cssc ,ye. submitted 10 toe jury without any
ir,fric'ions being asked 6y either side and
br iury returned % consult 81 their Vtrdicl
ana aficr about four bours wero sent ioT by
the Judge and asked for Their yerGicl lhey
responded that they had not Agrecd upon
verdict. and the foremsu then said that some
~ ihe iurv 'w0uld Ike 10 baye reasona.
nlc doubt dcfned ," Whereupon the coun-
soi for fhe defendant asked Two Instructions.
The co1r, cave one and rejected the other,
and ihc Common Rcalth's Attorney asked
an. which was given. The instruction
oi,rn af the instance OF the defendant MAS
Tins. "Tbc iurg are instructed that rea'
sorsifc doubt is such a doubt o. may he
honestly aud reasonably entertained as to
anv substantial and material fact essen.
fi,l 10 proyo The offence charged"
The instruction given ~ The Instance
OF the Commonwealth was As follows
"Rcs.ouabl~ doubt must be based upon the
evidence. or that IS suggested 10y the eVl'
dCnce or croW- ont 81 the evidence itseH. IL
must not be- an oruityury aOubt Whbout eVi-
dcnrc 20 sustliu n. 10 must be serious ana
substantial bro order to warrant an acqull'a''
u prsi he doubt ~ m,ierial fact OF facts
necessary for the Jury 10 believe 10 end a
verdict n conviction. and not Of immaeHal
and non.c.sen'ial circumstances, which The
Count cave. Toe iusiructiou asked for by
The defendant and refused was a. follows :
"T-nlets the iufy shall believe from the eYl-
dopce that the prisoner WAS guilty otthe crime
of which ne stands Indicted, beyond fca.
sonablc doubt. tbey shall hnd hm not gull'y.
And unless thry believe The evidence - OF
such "a character ~ 20 exclude everY reason.
mile bypotbc,ls Of biz IunOceuce, they shall
lind him not guilty." This instruction was
uoi rejected by thc judge because of any
supDp~pd lnaccuracy therein, but because os
D matter Of pT1c'ice the judge ihOuehl ~
host 10 restrict the instructions 10 full and
comUletc response 10 The inquiry made OF
sim lv The iurv. As a matter 0f practice
both side. had waved their right TO ask in-
eiruc'ion- for the jury before The case was
submitted 10 ihc jury for decision, and
neither side could claiW The night to
caU the Jury back O. give them ln,'ruc-
lions except bY leave ot the Court. II ~as,
however, uropcr FOR fhe Court 10 fully anu
comulc'eiy respond 10 inquiry when migut
come from thr Jury touching their duties,
and n This va. DONE aud correctly done,
ibop neither side had any valid rIeht 20 d.
rn,ud more. We thinb thc response maze
bv The Court 10 thc inquiry OF TIE luTy on
thi. UoIut was fully and correctly made, ana
thai there was no error lu refusing oiher IN
structions asked vt thlt time, especially
refused. as was thc case here, because they
came zoo late. We are of opinion, therefore,
that there Is no error. IN thi, action OF The
Corporation Court
Judge Lacv thcn proceeded to consider
tho bin Of exceptions wherein tw1s claimed
that the Court should have sei aside the YER
diet five years IN the pcnitcnuarY aS con
trarv 10 tle law and the evidence. Iho
main question VS. whether the evidence
established The identity oi the accused as the
guilty man. An thc points were decided Ia
favor of the Commonwealth AFFIRMED.
OTHER CASES.
Carr. SUPERVISOR, against Branch. From
tho circuit Court of the city of Petersburg.
Reversed iu part and affirmed part Judge
Icwi. delivering thc opinion.
Myers and wife against Williams, trustee.
From the circuit Court Of shenandoah coun'
tv. Affirmed. Judge Richardson delivering
the opinion.
Parrish against Wlugo, Elicit q Crump.
From the Circuit Court ot King William
county. Affirmed. Juige Hinton delivering
the opinion: Judge f1untler"y dissenting
Commonwealth against La,ham, Judge
Irpon petition for prohibition. writ award-
ed. Jldec Lacy delivering the opinion;
Judge Levi, dis,rutIn-
Wcrt AGAINST Joucs From the Circuit
Court Of Halifax county. Affirmed Judge
Lacy delivering the oplnion.
webb against hwaid Brothers. Petition
for appeal From the Circuit Court OF Wythe
county. Appeal refused.
Sundays, ArGniE\T oF CEFT IAWYEES.
The ease Of the Fidelity Insurance Trust
aud ~alc-Dolo-it company a-unSi The
-b.nsndosh Valley Railway Company and
Others V1, called in the Court oi Appeals
Yesterday for argument.
The cg.r "a our ot The most important ever
known iu thc counts ot \irginia, not only
from the character of the que-tlon- arising,
but from the magnitude oi the subject IN
controversy
the main question is between the first
morlga.re creditors snd general mortgage
creditors. involving thc title tn cl,1lu,uoV ~
t,st mortgage bonds. The first mortgage
creditor, are Represented boy Mr CHARLES l..
Iamhcrtou, oi Sew ! Ork. J0-cph Leedom,
of Phindclpril. aud Judge William w.
Cmmp. rur SECOND morllage creditors are
r.prr.rntad 10y lauA Il. C.ark. Of Baltimore,
and Judge Waller t. staples, aud go" court
below decided in favor Of the general mort
cage creditors represented ~ these gentle
men.
Another branch Of the ease IS @ contr0-
ver-v between what is known as the Car
Trust creditors ans other mortgage credit
ors. involving tac sum ol about c'oOooO
Another interest Is rcpre,eu ed by MIR.
Gordon Mc,ouch, Of Philadelphia. and
Judge Walicr u. staples.
Yel another branch ol The case Is conlro'
Ver,y between tine income mortc1ce credit
or. aud other palt lies in iuiefe-t-Mr Joseph
T.. CLARKE, of Pmtdcuhla, aod Judge
Waller IT, Saplts counsel. The Fidelity
Iusurmcc. Trust and Saic'ncpostt tompa-
nv. which holds the position OF trustee, Il
reprc.cntrd by JUDGE Wi'nsm y. Robert
son, OF Virginia, and Ar. John G. Euiutt, Of
Phiadclphia.
The case is of o notwithstanding and
character, aud the ourt OF Ap-
pral,, ia view oi thc magnitude ~ the 10
terc,i, involved, decided that they would /
give 10 the counsel SIX DAYS for their oral
argument. The record Of the case covers
!, I,50Opages of printed matter
The nustings COust.
The Hastings Cont was engaged yester- I
day in toe trial OF Edward tospcr, Young /
white man charred With stealing SiS.l5 irom /
Charlie, kcnduck. The offence Is alleged to /
have been committed on tae night OF Decem- /
Der 18th in tbe basement Of Ihompson's /
Aiusoe on Broad street