Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-22
IN The ATTORNEYS DISCRETION.
He Can Determine what witnesses Shall
BE Examined for the Prosecution.

In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day Judge Lewis delivered an important
opinion IN the case of Hill rs. the Com
monwealth from the County Court OF
Fauquier county. 3,
The prisoner was indicted for unlawful
shooting with intent to kill, and the prin-
cipal question in the case was whether the
trial court erred in denying fne motion o1
the prisoner TO compel the attorney tor
the Commonwealth to call as witness for
the Commonwealth the person alleged 10
have been shot. whose name was not on
the indictment as witness; had not been
summoned 10 attend the trial as witness
for the Commonwealth. and had not testir
fed before the grand jury. but VINO was IN
the courtroom at the time the motion was
made.
THE BuLING SUSTAINED.
The Court of Appeals sustained the
ruling of the trial court, holding that II Is
within the discretion OF the prosecuting attorney
az 70 what witnesses shall be called for the Com
mOnwealth, and that while the trial court may,
In It's discretion, call witnesses not called by the
prosecuting attorney who we're eyo-wltnesses OF
the transaction, or whose names are on tue ohch
or at tho foot OF the indictment, yet that the re-
fusai OF the court to compel the attorney Tor the
Commonwealth In the case before the court 70
call the witness in question was not reversible
error. IL was held, however, that inc dlscretioh
the prosecution ought 10 be cautiously exer-
cised, inssmuch as the prosecuting attorney Is
presumably more fully aware OF the facts Oh the
case than the court can bo.
The judgment was accordingly arnrmeu.
COUNCILS, NOT COURTS, PIX GRADES.
The opinion in the case OF the Roanoke Gas
Company against the city OF Roanoke, which
came from the Circuit Court OF that city, was
read by Judge Richardson. Tho company had
laid its gas-plpes in Campbell street according
70 the grade then established The city AFTER
wards lowered the grade In certain portions OF
the street, exposing the companys pipes for
distance Of hfty feet, and the company got out
an Injunction restraining the city IRON taxing
any further steps In lowering this street. Inc
city subsequently entered q demurrer and had
the Injunction dissolved and tho case dismissed
1t then came 10 the Supreme Court upon an ap-
peal taken by the gas company: Inns trlpuhhl
held that the City Council had the power 70
grade and regrade the streets as II saw nj, ana
that the courts had no right 70 Interfere. The
judgment Of the lower court was affirmed, Judge
Faunteroy concuuing In the result
OTHER PROCEEDINGS oP The COURT.
Roller against Efinger. From the Circuit
Court OF Rockingham county. Affirmed, Judge
Lacy delivering opinion, Judge fauntleroy dis
senting.
Walters and others against Walters and
others. Appeal allowed 70 a decree OF the Cir
cult Court OF Wythe county, pronounced at Sep
tember term. 1891.
Commonwealth against Balentine and two
other casos and Norfolk and Western Railroad
Company against Nunnally. Petitions to rehear
filed.
Chalkley against city of Richmond. Petition
TO rehear deried.
Richardson against Farrar, Judge. Argued by
Judge W. X. Staples for plaintiff and ". w.
Henry, ESD, fer defendant and submitted.
Isascs, Taylor 81 Williams against city Of Rich,
mond, Justice against cisy Of Petersburg, and
Rison against Moon, passed TO March term.
Voight against Raby. Continued.