Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-23
The SUPREME COURT.
YESTERDAY PROBABLY THE LAST
OPINION DAY OF THE SPRING TERM.
p.,,,,op p,s,nisscd for Want Of Jurisdic'
tion-Coieman Gets New Tri"i-
Interesting Insurance Decision.

Tho supreme Court OF Appeals OF Vir-
s,nia IL now nearing the end OF Its spring
term. Yesterday was probably the last
on,nion-day OF this session, and large
number Of cases. most Of them possessing
blu, little interest TO the general puohc'
were decided Probably the most impof-
tant decision OF the day was that IN 'he
case OF Hopkins and others against Judge
Grattan, OF the Hastings Court OF the
city of stanton. This was an appiiea-
ton by Judge Hotchkiss and others III
the original Jurisdiction OF the court lot
mandamus TO compel Judge Grattah 10
Issue writ for a special election upon
the question of granting liquor licenses
In the city of stanton. The petition was
dismissed for want OF Jurisdiction. Judge
Lewis, delivering the opinion.
When the petition was offered at the
bar" the opinion states. "a doubt was
expressed from the bench as to the Juris-
dIc,ion of the court to take cognizance
Of the case at that place Of session, and
this doubt has been confirmed by a SUD
geauent examination Of the statate. The
court held that whatever may nave
bcan the reason for the enactment the
language is imperative that the writ
"shall issue and be tried" at the place
prescribed. Judge Lewis was OF the
opinion that the requirement OF the
statute could not be waived as respects
the place at which the proceeding is to
be instituted. "rhe dismissal of the pc
ttion." concludes the opinion, "will be
without prejudice to the petitioners right
10 hereafter apply for the writ AZ Staun-
ton. II they shall be so advised.
COLEMAN GETS a NEW TRIAL
In the case of Coleman against the
Commonwealth. the opinion. which was
prepared by Judge Fauntlcroy, the
judgment Of the County Court Of Goocb-
land was reversed. and the cause re-
manded for new trial. This matter
came up on n writ OF error, by which
James Coleman was adjudged guilty of
murder and sentenced to be hanged Sep
tember ~ 1898. The record disclosed that
the plaintiff in error was indicted FEB
tuary 20. 1886, for the murder OF Robert
son Winston and on the same day was
.rraiened and pleaded. For reasons APP
pearing 10 the Court the case was con-
tinued until March Sd. The records then
show that on this day trial was again
Court The Supreme Court holds that the
record is fatally deficient in what the
law prescribcs as essentially necessary to
be statcd-"that the prisoner VAS present
in person" etc, when, FOR reasons az
poaring to the Court the trial of the
Gaze was ordered to be continued In
this case 1t did not even appear that the
prisoner was present by attorney Tie
Court could not imply that the prisoner
was personally present in court, AMI on
this ground the case was remanded
THE DELIVERY a MAYER.
The Court. IL very explicit terms. af-
frmed the action OF The Circuit Court
Of Wythe county in the case of the
Wythevillc Insurance and Banking Gem
pany against Kuehbrath * Sons. This
was an action OF assumption on a policy
of insurance for $1,000 issued the lain
tffs on certain furniture in the citv Of
baltimore by the dcfen liant company.
The company on trial relied to exempt
Itself from liability on the provisions Of q
paragraph in the policy prescribing that
the company shall not be liable By virtue
Of this policy or any renewal thereof
until the premium therefor be actually
paid" The Instructions of the lower court
10 the jury, however. stipulated that the
delivery of the policy TO the defendants.
or their agents. without demanding pay
ment Of the premium at the time OF the
delivery Of the policy was prima iacie
tnat credit was eX nded by the COM
pany and a waiver Of the conditions re-
fcrrcd to. The opinion states that the
instructions are well supported, setting
forth the language recently used by Judge
Lewis i'm "a similar casr-"lf in such "A case a
waiver were not implied the delivery Of
the policy would be not only an unmean-
ing ono. but a fraudulent and deceptive
ceremony" The Court finds no error in
the judgment Of the Circuit Cour;.
TIE OTHER OPINIONS.
Grinbcrs * Morris against Sineclman
& Rothman from the Corporation Court
Of Roanoke Affirmed; Judge Lewis deliV-
ering opinion
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company
" Hafncrs administrator. from the on
cult Court of Williamsburg and county oi
James city. Reversed; Judge Lacy delN-
erinC opinion.
Smythc W. Smythe. from the Circuit
Court Of Tazawel county. Ahmed {;
JUDGE Fauntleroy delivering opinion;
judges Lewis and Richardson dissent
MASSEY VS.. Yancey, from the Circuit
Court of Augusta county Affirmed;
Judge Richardson delivering Opinion;
Judge Lewis absent; Judge Fd~"titioy
dissenting.
Saunders & Son vs.. Lipscomb. IRON, the
Circuit Court OF King William county.
Affirmed: Judge Richardson delivering
opinion.
Hicks vs.. Richmond and Danville Rail
road Company Supersedeas awarded 10
a Judgment of the Circuit Court Of Alex
andria city on the 9th of March, 1898.
Barksdale VS. Barksdale. Supersedeas
awarded 10 a decree of the Circuit Court
OF Pittsylvania at the November tenn,
1893.
Henly VS.. Oakley Land and Improve
Inent Company. Petition to require New
bond denied.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
VS.. Hartman, etc. Supersedeas awarded
10 a judgment Of Circuit Court of Smytht
county of April 10, 1898.
Gaskins VS.. Finks. on rehearing. Former
opinion adhered to; Judge Lacy absent.
Benton VS.. Russell. Sheriff. Further
argued by f. L. Garrett, Esq, fol-
plaintiff in error, and submitted.
Bassett VS.. Curtis. Sheriff. Submitted
Norfolk and Western Railroad Com.
pany VS.. Phelps. Argued by Captain c.
NJ. Blackford. for plaintiff in error, and
+. u. Christian and John l.. Lee, Csqs
for defendant in error.
John NJ. George Esq. allowed 10 PIE c.
tice as counsel in this court