Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-10

length aud discussed fully and In minute
detail. From the facts cited IL appears
that In February. 1895. the mining CON-
pany gave Eames an option on the Tellu-
run tract which continued till November
7th Of that year. About the first OF No
yembcr Mr.. Baker, president OF the
Bullion Company, came to Virginia, and
after visiting the mine and consulting with
Eamcs, who was developing Improperly,
or rather prospecting for gold ore, came
to Richmond and had conference with
the Columbia Company. Either at this
conference or the one in Fluvanna q
memorandum of the terms upon which 1t
was proposed to sell the property was made
but not signed.
subsequently there was considerable cor
respondence between Mr.. Baker and Mr.
G. T.. Belvin, president of tho Columbia
Company. with reference to the proposed
sale. In the mean time, however, the com.
pany had agreed 70 extend the option OF
Eames. On the 18th Of November MIR;
Baker wrote that his company would
purchase the property IL allowed different
terms upon which TO make the payment.
They desired that some OF their notes
should run few months longer than was
proposed. This offer President Belvin de-
clined, but in subsequent correspondence
terms were named very nearly In sccoru-
ancc with the suggestion Of Mr.. Baker.
The Court held that there was never
any contract Of sale, and that the IN
signed memorandum was not IN the
nature of an agreement, but SIMPLY
basis for further negotiation. ,
Concluding, the Court says: Inc com
plainant company have no equity In tneir
case; the decree appealed from IL WnUnA
erroneous and it is reversed and annulled
and the order OF the Court will be 10
oboto tha attachment and TO dismiss the
bills with costs. A.
The Court commented freely on the
mart that flames took in the negotiation
| and the opinion referred to him as being
| made swift witness for the mining coih-
paDy. .,,
| in the event the sale was made was SIo,OOO'
On this point there was no controversy
Tho city Was Liable.
The opinion of the Court affirming the
| Judgment Of the Circuit Court OF norfolk
in The case of the city Of Norfolk against
Foster, Judge Lacy conc sGl1 IN 'ne result
This was n case in which John Foster.
non-resident and q man Of seyenty-two
wears. was injured in alightlng from
street-car in the city OF Norfolk on the
night of May 9, 1888.
Mr.. Foster had ridden several squares
when the car stopped for another person
10 get on. Being near his destination ne
avalled himself of this opportunity TO
alicht and started TO step off on the LETT side
of the car. The cobble-stones in the street
nj this point had been removed for new
ones TO be laid, and when stepping down
his grasp upon the stanchion was broken
and he fell into the street AID received IN
iuries which were very painful, and when
his physician thinks will prove perina-
nent. There was on electric light at the
corner about fortv-three feet distant. but
IL seems that the carbon had nearly burned
out and this part of the street was IN COM
parative darkness.
The Court held that the city was liable:
being responsible both for the condition OF
the light and the street where the accident
occurred. -,
Judge Richardson, in dissenting, took the
positiOp that the city adopted the best and
most approved method of lighting the
street and that there was no excavation
but simply level bed OF sand, where cob
ble-stones had been removed and new ones
were to be laid. The Judgment OF the
lower court was for $4,000, and 1t stands.
Other supreme Court Cases.
Thornton against Gasr. Petition to cor
rect decree overTuled.
Gray against Kemp. Writ OF error and
supersedeGs to Judgment of Corporation
Court of the city of Roanoke rendered at
June term, 1890.
Hunter against Beach. Argued by Judge
William j. Robertson for appellant.