Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-17
CAN'T MAKE HIM PAY.
ANOTHER PAVING CASE DECIDED IN
THE SUPREME COURT.
VIII serve Eighteen Years--other
Opinions Rendered.

inc supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day reversed the decree OF the Corpora
ton Court Of Bristol in the case OF John
McCroweli against the city OF Bristol.
The suit was one TO perpetuaily enjoin and
restrain the city and its Treasurer from
collecting the amount Of a certain local
assessment levied by the city upon Nc
Crowell for the cost Of the laying of
rranolithic pavement in front OF the pro-
perry of the plaintiff on Main street in the
city OF Bristol. The opinion in the ease
IL very long one, having been carefully
prepared by Judge Richardson. Section
~ Of tho charter of the city of
Bristol which touches upon the streets
OF the place, goes on 10 say that
the Council shall have power and au-
thority to have the sidewalks and cutters
along any street in said city tor such
width es il NAV prescribe paved or other
wise improved and altered at the proper
expense and cost of the owner Of the lands
or lots along the fronts or side of which
such sidewalks or Improvements NAV ex-
tend, and TO levy and collect such local as
sessmen's on these lots rs may be neces-
sary To pay for said improvements. these
assessments 10 be collected in the same
manner as other taxes are collected.
A GRANoLITHIc PAVEMENT.
The resolution Of the Bristol Council
provided that the city should grade Main
street from Virginia 10 Scranton, and that
the property-owners should be required
TO Law or pay for a granolithic pavement
on the same in front OF their respective
properties. &c.
The Supreme Court in its decision takes
the ground that the clause Of the oath
section of the charter OF Bristol referred
TO is confined 70 sidewalks and cutters
aud ~ kuh la cpnferg nnnn
the Council the authority 60 prescribe
the width of sidewalks aud cutters aud TO
have such sidewalks and cutters properly
paved. repaired, altered, or otherwise I'M
proved, at the cost of the abutting own
ers. and 10 levy and collect local assess
ments as prescribed. &c. but this clause,
II asserts. plainly limits ana restricts the
power of the Council, a. respects leyying
and collecting local assessments. to paving
or otherwise improving sidewalks ana
cutters.
TECHSICALIIY.
The decision quotes and requotes the
language of the resolution and ordinance
OF the Council In regard 10 this work.
which say THE property owners TO lay or
pay for a pavement on Main street. &c.
tho term "sdewalk" not being used. The
opinion says: that this ordinance or
resolution OF the Council plainly requires
the abutting property owners, II anybody,
70 nav for a cranolthic pavement on Main
street, and'nOt "a sidewalk or gutter on that
street, cannot for a moment bequestioped.
IL il conceded that the improve
ment for which the pretended assess
ment IN question was made was OF
sidewalk on Main street, IN the
city OF Bristol: but 1t must be borne
In mind that the question Is not whether
the said Council mad authority to pass
valid ordinance for such an improvement
and 10 levy and collect local assessments
to defrav the expenses thereof, but
whether under the ordinance III question
the assessment is VALID Continuing, the
OPINION declares that If this ordinance be
valid and binding the City Council could
90 ahead and pave the entire width of the
street and assess the abutting owners with
tho cost thereof. and II asserts that no
such power Is conferred 10y the charter,
either expressly OF by necessary lmpllca-
ton.
REFERENCE TO THE CHAMBERLAIN CASE.
The decision concludes as follows: I'm
the printed notes of arguments of counsel
the question was discussed whether under
the Constitution of Virginia the Legisla-
tuTe had the power TO confer upon the
Council of the city of Bristol the authority
TO lew and collect local assessments, as
provided by the oath section of Its charter.
The same question was carefully and at
length considered, though not decided, In
the very recent case of the city OF Nor
folk rs. Cham berlalne. not yet reported.
As IN that case so here II Is not absolutely
necessary TO proper decision of the case
that thar question be decided. 1t
Is not. therefore. to be understood that
this court IN any respect recedes from the
constitutional view of the subject eX-
pressed in the city OF Norfolk rS. Cham
berlaine, supra
For the reasons above stated we are
clearly of opinion that the assessment in
question was levied without authority and
is void, and that the decree of the court be-
low dlssolviuc the injunction and dismiss
ing the plaintiffs bill was erroneous and
must be reversed and annulled and de-
cree entered here perpetually enlolnlng
the SAID city of Bristol j. l.. &. Smith,
Treasurer of said city. and all Others from
proceeding IN any way TO collect SAID
assessment"
VIII Get Eighteen Years.
A very lengthy opinion was also rendered
in the case of Webster Snodgrass against
the Commonwealth. The decision was
prepared by Judge Lacy and affirmed the
decree OF the County Court of Wise county.
The case was one IN which Snodgrass was
convicted OF killing Morgan Sneaker, and
was sentenced TO imprisonment In the
penitentiary for eighteen years.
Other supremr-Court Cnses.
Field against Commonwealth. From Cir-
cult Court of Culpeper county. Affirmed,
Judge Lewis delivering opinion, Judge
Fauntleroy dissenting.
Raub against Otterback. From Circuit
Court of Alexandria city. Affirmed, Judge
Fauntleroy delivering opinion.
Young against Young. From the Cor
poration Court Of Norfolk. Reversed,
Judge Hinton delivering the opinion.
Judge Fauntleroy concurring in results.
English against Powell. Affirmed. Same
decree entered as at former decision, Judge
Lacy filing dissenting opinion.
Norwich Lock Manufacturing Company
against Hockadav. Rehearing denied.
Wells against Sewelrs-Point Guano Com
many. Argued bv Judge William Ii. Bur-
=, q, oDNaIiapf and W w Old EQn