The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-11-09
.u,nrxx counr or ArYsALs


Yesterday was first opinion day OF ,he
ell sess,on of the Supreme Court OF Az
,aa,s Three decisions were handed Gown.
1,,a r,embers of the court present "r'e
1,,a.,as Lewis. Hinton and Fauntleroy.
fudge Richardson had not reachee us
cifv ana Judge Lacy was SICK at ms
home in New Kent county. -. .,oes in.
ON January LIST the new couis ,,,,n9 OF
consequently this Is the nnal si,.l"e
the court as at present constitutes, oa
The most important opinion rsnue es,se
Yesterday was that rendered ~ VIZ pnr~.
of the Commonwealth ass ,n,noany. from
petual Building and Loan CoihPal,,y.s.,,ille
ne CORPORATION Court OF CnariottsS',ht ~.
The question to be deternhh s, - 81 the
case was whether the capi.tadd swhdiyision
OF the eighth section OF the revenue eli
OF 1899. or whether, IL 1t Is tsSsu osod On
the tax is included in the tax hlpv .snboia-
the shares i'm the hands OF the 10 90 W.,
ers by the second subdivision OF ,hs sa ,,h
section. The lower court held that SUI SUI
section taxes the shares OF a JoinssoIdere
company in the hands OF ,ne STR ,,Ishi, the
meaning of the statute; and Iurther, s,Ia ~
as me aggregate OF the shares rePI e.3hn
the corporate assets or every uesSi ~, -
the capital stock of the company rs ~, W
he listed under the third suosectioh ue-
cause II is otherwise taxed nier the ",
ceding subsection. The appellate coulS
held that tax on the s ,neS Court is re-
yersed Opinion by Judge Lewis. -
HTe,.iger 81 ais against Richmond Ice
Machine Company. FROM tne y .,,,,.,ed
Court of the city OF Richmond. AI' iiunIe-
Tho hin was filed by the appellants Weihs
ieer OF ais for a decision OF theLI suD
scriptions to the stock OF tne 0ai6 oy,
and to recover back the HloNyS 20 NOV
account thereof. on the grouhu tia aSriba
had been severally induced to supsclIoS
nv means OF fraudulent representatl,ons,
The court decided That ordinarily wiz, -
the rights OF creditors are concerneu III
subscriber must exercise reasonable care
and vigilance I'm discovering the lrduu,
and I'm any case he must, upon discovery
of the fraud, promptly repudiate tne pu.-
chase The court held that the appellants
had NOT exercised this reasonable care
and had not repudiated their subscrip-
tions in time. e.. they had been guilty
of lachee. and their bill must be DISMISS
ed. Opinion by Judge Lewis. -,
ttohrttsou against commonwealth, from
Comfy Court OF Franklin county. Al
armed Judge Fauntleroy delivering opih-
io Raad &, Brother against Norfolk City
pstIroad Company. Motion dOcketed.
Ingles against Straus and Co~iand
against Copeland. Causes removed from
Wytheville to Richmond.
jOhnson's administrator against mesa
neake and Ohio Railway Company. cause
removed from stanton 10 Richmond;
commonwealth against Wexford, Judge.
Petition for mandamus filed and continued
10 January. - 80.
LINN against Aiken, judge. Petition for
mandamus hled.
crease penalty of appeal and docketed.
Shipman against Fletcher. Three cases
nut on privilege docket for January.
Saks against Tyner. Petition to rehear
| filed.
Western Union Telegraph Company
against Bright. Petition to hear filed.
Charles W. ThrockmOrton. James d.
Brady and r. Bouldln, Esqs., qualified as
counsel.