Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-03-20
NO LICENSE NEEDED.
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES THAT
CLUBS DO NOT SELL LIQUOR.
a Mans Homestead Remains as Long
ss 10 IL HE MISREPRESENTATION
OF Will--Other Casee,

dav in the Supreme Court.
The case IN point was Wilkinson against
Morrill, and Others from the Circuit Court
Of Alexandria, IN which the facts them
solves are of very interesting character.
The appellant owned and lived in a
house in the city of Alexandria His fam
Il, consisted Of himself. grandson some
nine or ten years Of age, and o son who
lycd away from home and whom he oc-
Ca~lopal.y assisted.
TAE child WAS DROWNED.
The record states that one j. w. Wilkin.
sons creditor, John NJ. Trussiow, e. whom
d. was indebted in the sum of 5000. en-
iIccl the little boy away from home
AGAINST The Crandfather's wishes and car
ned HIN down the Potomac riyer on a Red
Mons excursion. truslow promised the
,H.I'S mother that he would take good
Gaze 1f HIM. Notwithstanding this. on the
Way home NJ night the little fellow was
very mysteriousiy drowned. Trusslow
TAD nothing 20 any one of the drowning.
ras the first the child's mother knew of II
N.s when tho body was found floating in
rNcr. The 10y not returning, the grand
+a'irr went To- lruSslOWs house and asked
g. s,c him. but was denied sight of
1fusSlow, who said his wife would not Let
lam come out.
lras HAT che Old man could not plead tho home
stead ANY longer. The child being out Of the way.
Af~ ga, however,, give partial excuse OF the
rl'.ls nushap by saying that he (rrussloW) was
o. drunk that Dc did hot know what became of
tiu.
ll was shown. though, that Trusslow had
qulrs"ura with ana evoa beaten the old man iu
Dis r-gt1Fur 90 get the boy away from him, and
shat DE- had oGcroi che mother money 10 ret
possession Of uc child
BOT oSG QUESTION INVOLVED.
In delivering the opinion Judge Lacy held that
che Only questions involved were whether the
homestead exemption ended with tho death Of
Llo graudchid and whcih0r the homestead cX-
rmpton was intended for % householder and his
family or mo family alone
Undoubtedly The Constitution meant II for him
as wcl a. Tor the family of which he IL certainly
q part IL was also intended, according % his
lir8, Tor tae protection OF the man who
s4s - provide corufortGblc home for
his family, and who possibly I'm go doing had be-
come deeply Involved I'm debi. This being the
,s@-' ana when OH age was upon him aud he saw
li- family one by ono passing away, IL would be
unjust 90 deprive him OF an IN his ltst years.
lh' me oi 20 child which could Doe so easily re-
moved by disease or au interruptions murderer,
was too slight a thing for 10 10 depend UpOn.
HE HOMESTEAD REMAINS.
In Massachusetts, ana many other States the
rc4th of The wife or a divorce did not end The
homestead exemption.
The Court would hold that a mans homestead
remains as long as 10 Is lis residence.
The decroe Of tho lower court was accordingly
pronounced erroneous
Judge Lewis disscuted
The Liquor Was Not Sold.
The opinion Ga the case Of the Piedmont Club
0f lyuChbure against The Commonwealth. from
.He Corporation Court Of the Tin City, was read
ly Judge Lewis
Tho club had been nucI in the court below for
selling liquor without o license; from which
judgment am appeal was taken.
the question involved, tho opinion said, was
whether or moi the club actually sold liquor.
Dr. Was COM l1siyely shown that the club was n
f.r1-tus organization for social and literary
pleasure and not "a device for cvadlug the law.
~. .r" except a member could obtain liquor for
money. visitors not being allowed % pay tor II.
1'ere Was TAO profit derived from handling the
drinks NhEh were sold az actual cost, the eX-
r.'n-~ as h1ndiiug and service being paid ont OF
fr" general fund. Ii was n simple and equitable
vay oi dispensing liquor. Similar decisions had
i-.n rendered hoy the supreme Courts Of Ten
u.--r' and Maryland.
The case was remanded for "a now trihl.
Child or Grandchild.
Ottorhach against Rohrer, from the Circuit
Court % Fairfax, Was viii case, which contained
IS V.ry pretty point
Mr. Oiterblch. dying. loft will which provided
tha' an estate worth about 100000 should not
10. divided until 1.-THE youngest child o. said
stiliren Tcierrlug - q previous claUse) should
is twenty-0ne years ~ age
This particular portion 81 che viii was assailed
lv the children ~ the deceased on the ground
that 70 was I'D 8 violation of the law Of per
petuities, and t2) that the youngest chill
drun ~ said children" referred % tho children
themselves ana not % the grandchildren, as had
been construed. AH the words born or I'M
born followed that portion Of the trust clause
the Court held that IL referred 70 grandchildren.
Tho opinion Of The Court, which was read 10y
Judge Lacy and from which Judge Lewis dis
scented, affirmed the decision Of the court below
in uph1lding the will.
There Was No Fraud.
IN tho case 81 Rorer Brothers against Gucgen-
rff q ffaF IrftE
Judge faunNerOy delivering opinion. Judges
Lay and Hinton absent.
The appellants. who we're indebted % GuFgcn-
'HIuDr sold thclf business IN tt9 entirety 70 JOhn
IS. tLiircs-. Guggeuhemcr fled bin asking
THAT the sale De- set aside az being made with In
tent % hinder delay, and defraud that re-
c,vor De appointed ana an injunction granted
tY prevent Cnildrcas from dispusinR Of the goods.
The prayer 81 the petition was granted the same
tsv 10 was made without the hearing Of evidence,
and hy order of the Court the Shcrl1 took charge
Of the ass.ets a. receiver
lu due time the defendants answered, denying
every allegation in the hill except The debt Itself.
DC was shown that Childress, 20 whom the korer5
Owed sS1l, hal bought 20 protect himself, ana
during fhe six weeks he was allowed 70 run the
business lac paid OF s3l7 OF the debts OF the
Ia The opinion q the Court judge Richardson
refers io the appellee ~ having KILLED the goose
Hl..l LAID the golden egg
No Refund of Taxes.
rfok and Western Railroad Company
fr fl-' supervisors NfnFLh county. from tutuit
Cont OF SHyth. Affirmed, Judge Richardson de-
lF 'rnr opinion.
Inlsss tho Oh Atlantic, Mississippi and Ohio
Railway Company paid az taxes % the county
OF ~nun tho sum OF S1,O53.2O. Several years
..itr. when the road became the Norfolk and
W'-j.ru. the supervisors were asked 70 refund
t.. taT ou the ground that the county had no
I.-.t o. lteg it. ms was refused, and appeals
t.e.'..Ivrly 20 tho County and Circuit Courts
1-e' With "a Ike fate.
other supreme Court Cases.
lrhnoui and Dauviue Railroad Company
against Ia PrHd. From the Circuit Court u
fltf rauia. i'm the lower court "a verdict OF
$1,000 Was given against the company for tho
f.ire n! rs woman named la Prad. The only
question 40 issue wac whether or not the victim
WIS guilty 81 contr.butOry negligence. The Pitt
rlI.4aIa court was sustained by any evenly
Ctflel court.
Hlrr Bgains, MUIR. From Circuit Court OF
Al'vaniria city. Affirmed, Judge Hinton de-
Ltrrlns opinion. Notung was involved IN TINS
csse eAccp. t1c construction 81 the language IN
- lease
Lewis against Commonwealth. From the Cir
CLt Court OF Spot-ylvania. Reversed, JUICE
Lazy delivering opinion. This was "a coupon case.
Commonwealth against Chafin- From circuit
Court oi Richmond city. Dismissed for want OF
jurisdiction, Judge LOWS delivering the opin-
f-eidauheim against Rohr. Motion 70 dismiss
oFerrlIcd, Judge Richardson dissenting.
-tslrre-'- executor against city Of Richmond
VITA Of error and supsrsededS awarded 70 !1dg-
mons 0i Circuit Court Of Richmond city OF jan
LarF -3. 1891.
Simpson araius, Digger. Argued By James
J. Harrison, Ea9., for appellant, and T. Z. D0ul-
u" AID W. ", Henry k5la, iOf appellee