The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-03-31
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
LAST DECISION IN THE CELEBRAT-
ED BETTTE THOMAS-LEWISC CASE.
Richmond Men Concerned In One OF the
Causes-writ of Error In the Clark
Case-Interesting Legal Papers.

In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yes
terday, I'm the case CT Thomas admins
traitor against Lewis. the opinion OF the
lower court was affirmed by an evenly
divided court. This procedure ends all
controversy in the celebrated Bette
Thomas-Lewis case. and decides that the
receivers. Messrs Mann s. and w. X.
Quarles, shall be paid out OF the FUNDS
declared by the court TO be the property
Of the heirs at-law. In other words, the
heirs-at-law pay the Messrs. Quarles ana
not Bette Thomas-Lewis Ire opinion
was not written. but was merely verbal
ruling Of the court.
In the case Of Jesse Mitchell against
the Commonwealth the opinion Of the
lower court was reversed. and the cause
goes back for new trial The case came
from the Circuit Court Of Amelia county
Mitchell was indicted for outrageous as
sault upon James Thraves, and In ac-
cordance with the finding of the jury Was
sentenced TO he hanged. The case came
TO the Supreme Court on technlcaliues,
and after the ruling cn the tnlrd on OF
exceptions Judge Richardson decided that
tie case should be returned Tor ne"
hearing
I'm the case of Clark against the Com
monwealth Il writ Of error and supefse-
IDEAS was awarded 70 the judgment rem
dered by the Corporation Court Of the
city of Danville. Clark, it will be remem-
bered. shot Mofatt some time since, and
on yesterday through counsel applied 10
the Supreme Court for writ OF error.
The petition and record Of the case is
very lengthy one, there being go pages
of typewriter matter
A case Of very great importance in a
commercial sense was that Of Cottreil
against Watkins and others. also decided
yesterday i'm the Court Of Appeals. The
facts are that in 1874 Joseph Cottrell,
being unable to pay a debt Of $3.50 due
bv him to the Glover Hill Railway Com
panv. his brother. John w. Cottrell,
executed his accommodation notes Tor
the amount of the debt, and secured
them by a deed OF trust on his property
i'm HenricO county. The notes so secured
were given TO the creditor company ana
accepted in full of the debt. AT ma
turty they were taken up by the debtor,
Joseph Cottrel and kept by him. and
were not handed over to his brother, who
had given them for the accommodation
of Joseph COurel The latter held them
for about ten years after their maturity,
and then passed them to Charles Il. Wat
kins i'm some business transaction he had
with him Watkins then, although warn
ed by John Cottrell that the notes We're
paid and eXtingushed. instructed John
:. Wise and General T.. VI. Logan, the
trustees in the deed securing the notes,
TO sell the property. which they did al
auction, and Watkins himself became
the purchaser at $500.
John W. Cottrell, whose property was
thus sold over his head for a debt al
ready extinguished. then filed his bill in
the Circuit Court OF Henrico. asking that
the deed made by the trustees 10 Watkins
be set aside and the notes and the deed
of trust securing them be declared eXtin-
guished. Counsel for the defendants de-
INJURED 10 the bill. chiefly on the ground
THAI as the notes given We're accOmmoda-
ton notes they We're not eXtingushed by
payment. but could Dee reissued ad infini-
tum The demurrer was sustained hy the
Circuit Court and the bin was dismissed.
on appeal the supreme Court holds that
accommodation notes after maturity are
subject to all the equities that notes for
value are. that the defense Of Payment
against an accommodation note Is a good
one and. i'm short. that any accommOda-
ton note after its maturity Is on no
d-feuses and equities that ordinary pa
per is. The court reycrses the Circuit
Court. orders the case reinstated, and
DEGREES that the case proceed in order
% the relief prayed tor.
The case is chiefly important i'm that il
ovcrrulcs the case OF Davis against Miller.
u Grattan pages % and 8. on the subject
of accommodation notes being subject 10
equities after maturity and establishes
as law FIN Virginia "a principle that has
been greatly I'm doubt hitherto. There are
slsO other questions decided. raised by the
demurrer. but this Is the chief and main
point in the case.
MI j. II. Webb-Peploe was counsel for
the successful appellants. and Messrs.
Thomas Nelson Page. II. y. Carter and
W. T. DeSaussure for the appelleos.
Hawthorne against Beckwith. From
the Circuit Court eff Brunswick county
Reversed. Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Epes against Williams. From Circuit
Court iof lNottoWay county. Reversed,
Judge Lacy delivering opinion.
Vaughan. etc. AGAR 81 Moore and others.
From the Circuit Court Of Grayson
county Reversed, Judge Fauntleroy de-
livering opinion
Combs against Commonwealth. Writ
of error and supersedeas allowed 10 a
iu1gment rendered by the Circuit Court
of Carroll county on the nth Of Novem-
Der. 1892 affirming a judgment Of the
county court Of said county on the 18th
of August, 1892.
Isaacs. TAYLOR q Williams against City
of Richmond. Argued by f. W. Christian,
Esq, for aITellants.