Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-04-26
ELECTION ORDERED.
PEOPLE OF BUCKrEeHAM TO VOTE FOR
COUNTY TREASURER.
Decision of the j5upreme Court of Appeals
Rendered FIN This and in Other
cases Yesterday.

, Quite recfutly A. c. Gsrnett, p. A. Grigg,
and CGsaE Perkins, citizens, voters, and
taxpayers OF Buckingham county, by
COUNSEL fled a petition in the Supreme
Court here, complaining that they were ag-
grloTed hy the refusal Of the Hon, A. :.
Hsf, Judge OF the County Court. to Issue
witt OF election for the Office Of Treasurer
81 the election to be held on the fourth
Thursday In May, 1880.
The petition further said
At the November term, 1857. OF the County
Court Of Buckingham county an order was en-
tered appointing George Washington Patteson
% bold the ONCE Of treasurer in place or tho
former treasurer, whose Office was vacated by
death just previous 10 the order Aforesaid.
Your petitioners presented 10 the Hon. A. :.
Hall, Judge of the County Court OF Buckingham
county, petition, in which the said Judge was
asked 10 aWari the writ Of election Of troa-
surer for the said county OF Buckingham 20 nh
ofiice on aud after July /, 1883. such election 70
take place on the fourth Thursday in May loN9,
a. (which time tho supervisors. magistrates, con-
stables. and oYersecrs Of the poor arc 10 be by
law elected in the said county.
In tho petition hereto attached asking Judge
A. =. Hall, "A aforesaid TO issue the writ Of cleo
tion, 70 be held on the fourth Thursday in Nay
your HonOrs will find a statement OF the statutes
AMI provisions In reference % wrts OF elections
70 Oh vacancies and your ilonors attention ia
respectfully asked 10 the reeitsls and citations
herein contained upon tho subject.
Your petitioners respectfully say thas somo
weeks ago g p stltiOn, very similar in ia charsc-
ter 70 that hereto attached, was presented 10 the
Hon. A.. s. Hall, Judge ~ the County Court Of
buckingham county asking FOR the writ of cleo
ton 10 be awarded. and that he refused upon the
ground that the present Incumbent. appointed
by the County Court at tho November term, lS,1
ne heretofore mentioned. h1d n vested right 20
his ONCE and was entitled 70 hold the same until
the general election for county officers 70 De held
In May, 1891.
Your petitioners. however. after considering
the subject and advising with counsel, thonghtN
proper 10 give that Judge an opportunity 70 re-
CONSIDER his opinion aud order the WITT 20 Do
awarded and therefore they 1ed the petition
hereto attached, IN which the same relief was
asked but the said Judge still refused to award
tho writ and refused TO give any reason IN
writing for his action or 10 endorse his opinion
upon tho back Of tho petition.
Your petitioners therefore say that they and
other ciuZ0ns Of the county. voters and TAX
PAYERS fcel Rggrieve1 that, by this action Of the
Judgc'of tho County Court. rs tho people o. tho
county are denied the privilege OF clecting
person OF their own choice 30 ill - portan. an
onice 50 that OF treasurer, In defiance. "a they
respectfully state aud believe. OF the statutes in
such cases made and provided They therefore
pray that this honorable court will issue its
mandate 20 the said A. :. Hall, Judge OF the
County Court OF Buckingham county directing
and requiring him 10 award the writ OF election
Aforesaid, and that your HOnors will make all
such o.her and necessary orders AZ may be pro-
/ per 10 carry out ana perfect the relief herein
asked for.
The supreme Court yesterday, through its
/ president, the Hon. Lunsiord l.. Lewis, an
| nounced that the mandaTus would be issued.
| There was no written opinion.
FORD AGAINST EUKBR
This was a case from the Chancery Court
OF Richmond.
In 1854 A. j. Ford bought OF l.. J. Euker
so feet OF ground on Broad street at 5000
per front foot. Euker fOr various reasons
assigned refused to make deed. Ford then
brought a SUIT for damages; later, In the
Chancery Court, he brought suit for Speci-
fc performance OF contract, but Judge hOla-
day decided against him, and yesterday the
/ Supreme Court affirmed Judge Holiday,
judge Lacy delivering TIE opinion.
The lots in question are nov valued at not
less than $3.50 per foot
Ford proposes to push his suit for damages,
which has never been dismissed.
In the opinion rendered yesterday the
court decided against Mr.. Ford on several
grounds interesting to the profession on, too
technical for the general public's reading.
OTHER CASES
Bowden against Parrish. From the Cir
cult Court OF King and Queen county. Re-
yersed in decreeing a sale OF the interest OF
the defendant, b. F. Bowden, In the real
assets Of the estate OF hs father. Robert
Bowden, deceased, before directing settle.
ment Of the administrators accounts. Judge
! Lewis delivered the opinion.
Pitts against SPOTS a Gibson. From the
Circuit Court Of King and Queen county.
Reversed, Judge Lewis delivering the
opinion.
Joues's executor and as. against Bonds
administrator and dis. From the Circuit
Court OF Orange county. Reversed,
Judge Fauntler0y delivering opinion.
Elam and others against Commercial
Bank OF Suffolk Affirmed, Judge Hinton
delivering opinion.
New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk
Railroad Company against Cooper's admin
istratOr. Rchearing denied.
Yates administrators against Law aud ais.
Further argued by Major John W. Riley for
appellant and II. L. Barksdale for appellee
and submitted.
Fore against Fosters administrator. Ar
gued by Wood Boulding. Jr., Esq, for sp-
pellsnt and w. W. Henry for appellee.