The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-04-02

81 Judge Woods rendered his decision
yesterday morning in tho cases Of
)idler, Grl0lsh, Vaughan, Markley and
Folly vs. w. +. Patterson, the contrac.
: or. The suits wore brought by the sub
contractors to attach money to tho
amount of about $500 In tho hands of
Pie city. due Patterson for work. The
'Snoney had already been assigned by
&him to the Fidelity Loan and Trust
|aCem pany. Tho case had been previously
Hsrgued by ablo counsel on both sides.
a3FollowiDg is the text of Judge Woods
&decision:
Al 1.-The same evidence in the main being
~ ,pplicable to all tho foregoing causes,
10y consent they have been heard to.
Sgether. In order to correct determi
4hation of the matters involved in these
81 auses, have after listening to the oral
arguments, carefully gone over the long
|&ind tedious record and examined not
apnIY the Numerous authorities cited, but
Traditional ones. Tho complainants in
Sthese causes have sued out their respect
live attachments upon two alleged
3grounds.
First. That tho defendant, Patterson,
was at the time a nonresident of the
Estate of Virginia.
il "Sec md. That on the 18th of Decem-
8ber, 1892, he made an assignment with
Intent to hinder, delay or defraud his
Ecreditors.
Before the complainants are entitled
Ito succeed they must prove
Eby preponderance of testimony
Fone of these grounds. lave
they done 50? We think not With
reference to the question Of non resi-
fdence, the compliments have upon
their part, proved that the family OF tho
defendant, Patterson, was at the sueing
ont of those attachments living near
Washington city, and that at different
| times he had said that his homo Tor
residence) was in Washington, and had
ALSO mado use of tho expression that
ne would sue in the United States
courts as non resident OF Virginia.
On tho other hand Patterson Claims
that he said he would claim non-resi.
dence and sue in the United States
courts, and this was SAID, he
claims, in reply to statement
that he could not got Justice in tho
Roanoke courts He gives as the reason
why his family live near Washington
that it is in order to educate his child.
rem and it is further proven on this
branch Of tho case and unoontradicsed
by any one, that Patterson came to
Roanoke city in the fall of 1891 and has
been here ever since excepting few
temporary absonces), that in May, 1892,
ne registered as voter and made oath
as to his then residence, although he
did not vote, and the evidence also
shows that the defendant did other
acts. having tendency to establish his
residence in tho city, but as not much
Importance is attached TO them to refer
to them in detail Is needless.
'Granting that Patterson did mako
the statement imputed to him land to
be frank wo think the prepon-
derance Of evidence shows that he
did make them) still when taken
in connection with the facts
that just prior to that time he had
made the necessary oath of residence
and registered as n voter in said city,
and had been continuously in said CITY
since the fall Of 1891 and waa in the
city at the time tho attachments were
sued out and had his business here,
that be had an incomplete contract on
hand likely to detain him for some time
longer (oven II he contemplated leaving
the State), we are decidedly of the
opinion that tho declarations referred
to do not cons ;itute such q ground OF
non residence as is contemplated by the
statute.
"Nor is this tho first time this dog
trine has been announced in Virginia.
In the case OF Long vs. Ryan and al 80
Graft us. Judge Staples, in delivering
the opinion of our court of appeals, said
that such declarations are not OF much
weight unless they accompany and are
explanatory of acts done at the time
They are often loosely and carelessly
made, and often misunderstood or mis-.
construed by the nearer. These were
nero casual conversations, so Patterson
testifies, and general observation
teaches that the words residence and
home are frequently used in vague
and indefinite sense.
sit would be perfectly consistent, so
far as the attachment laws go, for q
man to havo his residence here and his
family in Washington, sec Graft 10,
sin the opinion already referred to,
the learned judge uses this language:
This branch Of the attacnment law
is based upon the idea that debtor is
living, dwelling, beyond the limits OF
the State but has effects or debts due
him in the State. Certainly Patterson
lived here and tho complainants would
have found no difficulty in serving pro.
cesse5 on him here. But it is contended
by counsel for compliments, that Pat
terson having made these declarations
to one or moro of them he is stopped
from claiming his residence elsewhere
it seems 20 nae that sufficient answer
to this proposition, Is that an attach.
ment gives to him who sues it out not
only the right to subject the debtors
fects, but also gives him priority Owe
other, creditors, and by establishing
lew loose declarations made by III,
debtor, this undue preference could b,