Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-04-02
TO BE HEARD AGAIN.
TIE HODGES CASE TO BE asARcuso
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
Judeo Hinton DID Not Approve the Order
Prepared and New Decision WIN
he Given.

Tho Nuprcme court OF Aprons on bloth
day last. as reported In the DIspArcHo OF the
next morning, set aside the order entered
on the previous Thursday in the case OF
Hodges against the Seaboard and Roanoke
Railroad Company, which perpetuated the
Injunction restraining the running Of
tracks on Crawford street. Portsmouth.
The roheanng will be had within the
no1, few weeks. and tho result is looked
iarvard TO with great deal Of interest.
Inc decision il one of the most far-reach-
ng ever delivered in Virginia and has
attracted very general attention.
ON the two days succeeding its delivery
X was tho absorbing theme OF discussion
,mong Virginia railroad managers and
members Of the bar whose practice en-
braces railroad litigation.
0m JUDGE HTSros sAScT1oSy
on Satursay II was whispered in certain
dqartcrs mere aud moro generally rumored
4, Norfolk that Judge Hinton had on the
dsv before refused 20 sign OF sanction the
decree or order in the case. and that there
bed been an exciting scene in the court
room.
As soon as this report reached the DIS.
r,reH "a reporter was sent 20 the residence
az the clerk, Mr.. Taylor on Church Hill,
{ inquire as 20 It's accuracy. Ia reply 10
questions asked him, MIR. Taylor said that
tIe had been no scene IN the courtroom
arI be could not conceive how such an er-
Toucpus idea bad gotten abroad. This,
though doubtless not so intended by him,
was construed as q denial Of the rumor as
u Judge llintOn's action IN the matter.
THE REHEARMG GRANTED.
II now transpires that Judge Hinton did
rot approve OF the order entered on Thurs
dsy aud read Friday morning, though il
was given out when the opinion was de-
lyored that he concurred in IT.
Touching this matter the Portsmouth
Fr5r,ss in quite a long editorial says:
q reg hearing could only b. granted at the re-
quest 0i one of the judges Of the Court OF AJ-
THa's Who had agreed, or Was supposed 20 have
agreed. with the majority Of the court whose
opinion reversed The judgment Of tho Circuit
Court Of the city Of Portsmouth and granted n
perpetual injunction restraining the use Of CraW-
ford street without tho consent Of the property
owners, on the ground that property-owner has
the rght 10 control, N a certain extent, street
g. within sixty feet Of his residence, as We have
explained several times In those columns.
JUDGE HINTOS's POSITION.
Mo nave entirely reliable authority for
f'ating-as We have not only general rumOr, but
also the statement from n wholly sensible and
truthful gentleman who got his information in
person from prominent lawyer OF Petersburg,
Who was present In The courtroom At the time
that when the opinion was handed % Judge
Dfury Hinton, % the Court OF Appeals, he posi-
lively refused 20 sanction II, saying that his
opinion WAS that the case should be renendod
o. the lower court for the appointment Of
oInmissiOners 10 determine compensation TO
tho plaintiffs, tho Crawford-street property
owners. Tho change which affairs have TAX en-
IA ordering fehearing fully confirm this view
Of the matter, and we have little dOnbt In our
own mind that the cRse will be remanded 20 the
lower court for the appointment OF commission
trs. which will be a satisfactory solution Of the
ClG'rIity ~ far as the railroads and the citizens
ui Portsmouth are concerned.
10 I-, however, possible that the court may be
divided 40 that majority cannot agree upon an
opinion, in which event the decision OF the lower
court would be- sustained and the Injunction dis
f.lred, in which case the road would be built
without the appointment OF commissioners.
OBJECTED TO THE oRDEB.
The above is entirely correct. the detail
transactions IN the case being about as fol-
lows.
Last Friday Clerk Taylor, in reading the
record Of the court for the previous day.
read the o.dcr in the case as attached TO
III. opinion delivered by Judge Lacy.
When he had concluded Judge Hinton,
who was one of the three who had favored
a., opinion the previous day, said he could
Lot sanction II.
Judge Lacy at once replied that the
court would confer and prepare another
order. and nothing more was SAID. but. OF
course Judge Lewis, the president OF the
court. did not sign the order. Monday
morning he matter was considered IN con-
terence, when il Is understood Judge Hin
tlr -nd II the order was drawn in accord
bner with the opinion he could not agree
g. as he did not endorse the siXty-toot
clause.
the opinion and order were compared
and found TO agree and as result the re-
ie4rng was decided upon.
NEW ORDER ENTERED.
After the conference Monday che Clerk
$50. instructed TO enter an order as Of Fri
uuy iu keeping with the above.
on. who is IN n position TO know yester-
day told DISPATCH reporter that Judge
Hinton thinks the case should be sent bac k
fotha lower court that IL may be referred
to commissioners for the assessment of
damages.
Whom asked about the matter yesterday
the Judge said as "a reargument had been
ordered IN the case it would be improper
Tor Wm 10 talk about Il.
When the opinion was delivered by
Judge Lacy last Thursday, Judges Lewis
and fnuntleroy dissented. On the new
tuAl. should Judge Hinton also side with
them again It goes without saying that the
opinion Will be reversed.