Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-12-05
DECISIONS IN COURT.
OPINIONS RENDERED YESTERDAY IN
AlAR6E NUMBER or CASES.
Railroads Liable for obstructinK Drain
ago--A Confession Under Threat Not
Evidence--Other Questions.

Yesterday was opinion-day in the su-
rrcno Court Of Appeals. as Thursday
always IS. and all five Of the Judges were
on the bench.
II was expected that there would be o
number Of decisions rendered AS the Court
did not sit Thanksgiying-day, when opin-
IONS would have been handed down, and
iho attendance Of members Of the bar was
quite large. Among those present were
some OF the leading lawyers Of the city and
State.
The session Of the court was opened
promptly at 1880 o'clock, and about five
minutes time was consumed III prellmina-
tlcs.
MUST NOT oBsTRUCT DRAINAGE.
The hrst case taken up was that OF the
Atlantic and Danyille Railroad Company
AGAINST Pcake In which Judge Lewis read
tle opinion. which is quite long. This
vas an appeal from the judgment Of the
Circuit Court Of Norfolk county, 90 which
several exceptions were made.
II appears that several years ago Mr.
4ohn =. Peake purchased truck-farm a
few miles from Norfolk, through which
this railroad passes. Finding his crops ana
land damaged by the frequent overflow OF
water. and not being able 10 effect satls-
factory arrangement with the railroad
managers with reference 90 drainage, he
brought suit i'm the Circuit Court for $4,000
damages. In his declaration be charged
that the flooding Of bis lowlands was due
D. the lack Of sufficient culyerts 90 carry
The volume Of water Of. and that the in
igry 90 ms crops was attributable solely 20
ilis cause. The Jury returned a verdict in
favor If the plaintiff for $1,000. and the
nudge of the trial court refused 70 set II
aside or 10 suspend judgment.
The opinion Of yesterday, which was
very strong one. afirms the judgment OF
,be lower court One of the principal
grounds on which new trial was asked
was that the trial Judge oyerruled the
motion of the defendant for a special jury.
This point was discussed al great length
aud the conclusion reached was that the
lower court nd not abuse the dis
crotion vested IN 10 by the Code OF
virginia The point vas made that no OBJ
lection was raised no the time OF the trial
t. either the Jury or any member OF 1t.
All of the rulings OF the circuit Court
were sustained. Judges Hinton and Rich
srdson coucurred with the President and
Judges Lacy and Fauntleroy dissented.
wiFE's ADMISSION.
Judce Fauntleroy delivered the opinion
of tho court in the case of Hampton rs.
IIsfuptou. which came up on an appeal
from tho Circuit Court Of LOudOun, where
the defendant Hampton was granted di-
v9rce from hs wife. M0ucna y. Hampton.
j. appeared from the record that on the
trial Hampton produced letter from his
wife IN which she admitted having been
uniaithful. The opinion was very elabo-
rate. and reviewed the evidence and the
answer of Mrs. Hampton at great length
aud in full detail.
Judge Fauntlerov dissectcd the side of
thr ca.e ~ made by Hampton and his wit
r,..es. several Of whom were COlOrcd, and
r-.iIc,cd iu toe most severe terms the con-
lIpt of the husband in using various
methods and threats 10 induce tho wife TO
comics. that she had not been true TO her
marriage VOWS. Some Of the scenes as
represented hv the record were pic
urol bv the Judge IN highly
lrt.stic manner. and frequently those
mpusiug the audience in the court
room were compelled TO laugh III
hearty though suhdued manner. The
opinion expressed surprise that the lower
court should under any circumstances
i.y. granted the divorce with such light
I.iure u as the certified record revealed.
Iu. decision. which reversed the lower
court. was strong defence for
i., VIfe. who, il appeared, was threatened
LIf lNNUAlkA anu unuAiF ANkfn ~ nm
(. her fathers and left there. All
nj tho Judges c1ncurred except Judge
lewis, who dissented strongly on the ques
ton of the wifo's written admission. He
I.ld that the wifc's letter, although OBJ
A.ned ina questionable manner, was clear
g simssible as.evidence, though perhaps
not entitled 20 much weight.
OTHER DECISIONS.
Vqrksdnle against Parker From the
Circuit Court of Pittsylvania county.
Affirmed, Judge Lacy delivering opinion.
Mock against Spracker. From the CIR
cut Court of TaZowell county. Affirmed,
uisc Richardson delivering the opinion.
Blo-o against Bear. From the Circuit
Court ot Rockingham county. Affirmed
Judge Hinton delivering the opinion.
Baker against Baker. From the Circuit
Count of FauQuier county. Affirmed,
Judge Lewis delivering the opinion.
Alexandria aud Fredericksburg Railroad
Company against HerDdon. From the Cir
rut Court ot Prince William county. At
frmcd. Judge richardson delivering the
Norfolk and Western Railroad Com
pauy against Read. From the Circuit
Court of Botetourt county. Affirmed,
Judge Lacy delivering the opinion.
sONr GBANTED-OTHERs REFUSED.
Jones against Commonwealth. Writ Of
error aud uiJ,Ts,d. as awarded TO the County
Court of klug aud Queen county, rendered
On the 81 Of July 1880.
Wheat president, againstCity Council of
Alt1sudra. Mrit Of error and s1tperSeiens
awarded O. "a Judgment of the Circuit Court
of the city Of Alexandria, rendered onthe
18th II March. 1880.
McIe,ghs executors against Howard.
Writ Of error and stip,rsedoGIS awarded TO
Judgment of the Circuit Court of the
city OF Alexandria, rendered on the 23d OF
September. 1880.
Parker against Town Of Suffolk. Writ
Of error refused 20 u judgment OF the Cir
cult Court of kansemond county, rem
dg8d IN AprI, 1870.
Board Of Supervisors of Powhatan
rounty against tho Farmyille and Pow
hatan Railroad COMPANY. Appeal refused
u d oocree 81 the Circuit court OF Pow
hatan county rendered az the October
term, 1880.
DAVIS against the Farmville and Pow
tatan Railroad Company. Appeal refused
10 o decree Of the Circuit Court of Pow-
hsian county rendered az the October
term, 1890.
Jones against McGruder. Further ar