The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-12-22
The COURT OF APPEALS.
EANY OPINIONS RENDERED BY TIE
REFINING MEMBERS.
Gmith's Executor We. Housemap--other
Decisions Rendered~The Librarian
Tendetsd Ills Resignation.


A large number OF opinions were hand
cd down by the refining members IN me
Snprene Court OF Appears yesterday, some
OF which rad been on the docket t"I q q
long time. Judges Lewis, hlehsru lstans au ~
Hinton wcrcb ~ csent. and the opinions oI
JUDI es Lacy and Fanntleroy, VINO Wete
absent, were handed down IN. writing,
Mr.. Thomas NJ. Fowler, OF LOUISE VIII
has been crier and librarian OF the court
Tor twelve years. tended ais PRESERVATION
and made quite touching iafewen az
dress. Judge Lewis REPLIED ana co'ii ,in,
mented him on his faithful services anu
his admirable conduct OF the oihce whicn
he held Clerk Taylor was appointed 10
temporarily mi the office ,o-aov 20
sign few orders, and Will then ad-
The case Of Smiths executor against
1IOuseman, from the Circuit court OF
Bofctourt. was reversed IN part.
In June 1883. Henry II. smith executed
paper agreeing that ~ Elliot smith
survived him he would bequeath TO nm
one thousand dollars. the supposed con,
sideration being services 10 be rendered
by said Elliot Smith. an orphan BOY ana
In December, the year following. Hen
~ II. Smith executed Will whereby pc
disposed OF his entire estate without IN
any way referring 10 Elllot Smlth OF t"e
paper mentioned.
he died in February, 1891, and When
the will was probated the nature anu
effect OF the paper Ia question had 20 De
determined. ana the Circuit Court Of Bote-
tonri adiudged IL to be a valid contract, to
De treated AS though Il were peGuhlarS
legacy in the testatOr'S last VIII anu
testament. Judge Lewis reversed this de-
cision, Judge Hinton dissenting.
SLATER VS.. SLATER.
Judge Hinton prepared and delivered me
opinion IN the case or Slater dSdihSt
Slater. from the Circuit Court OF YORK
comfy. This was a controversy involving
the care Of three infant chidTeI ~
Charles IL. Slater and his wife Ann H. H.
Slater
Disscnsions having arisen between hus-
band and wife, the husband praye9 10
the judge OF the County Court or YORK
but his petition was denied IN appeal
was taken from the judgment OF Inc
County Court. and the Judge or me III
cult Court directed that the chlldren De
transferred TO the care of the father. ana
in this shape the matter came 10 the ou-
pTeme Court.
Judge Hinton. in delivering the opinion.
stated that it was the custom OF the
court TO remand the children to that par
ent at whose hands they would receive
the greatest degree of affection and ten
dcrness. but that in this case the father
being an able and provident man. ana
the mother being in rather humble cir
cumstances. the Court has decided that
the father should have the care OF the
little ones. The judgment OF the lower
court was. therefore. affirmed.
UNIQUs QUESTION SETTLED.
In the case OF Lewis VS.. the Common
wealth very unique question was set
tied The defendant was tried upon an
Indictment charging him with selling
liquor without a license i'm the county OF
Accomac. The plaintiff in error claimed
that he did not sell liquor. but that IT
had been bought before hand by num-
Der of gentlemen, who when they went
20 take drink would drop a small sum
OF money in a box. The court held that
this was an evasion of the law, and
that the judgment of the Circuit Court
was correct.
The case OF Barker VS.. the Common
wealth was also a peculiar one. The
opinion in it was delivered by Judge
Lewis. Barker has already oetr in jail
about two years, having been lHdicted
and convicted of breach of promise and
had his punishment fixed at two years
Ia the penitentiary by the County Court
of Henry. November 2, 1892 Exceptions
20 were taken to the instructions of that
Court to the jury. and in one or wo in
stances the Court sustained such eXcep-
tions, and reversed the judgement, thus
rendering him new triad. His punish
mcnt has already been severe. Although
Judge Lewis rendered the opinion, Lc is
I'm no way responsible for the delay, the
matter only recently coming into his
hands.
OTHER DECISIONS.
The other decisions rendered were as
Lennigs executor VS. White. from Cir
cult Court Of Rockingham; reversed.
Judge Richardson delivering opinion.
=
OF Nansemond; reversed. Judge Richard
son.
George and others VS. Bates and 9th
ers. from Chancery Court Of Richmond;
reversed. Judge Hinton.
Norfolk and Western railroad VS.. Mar
shalPs administrator, from Circuit Court
Of Bedford; affirmed. Judge Lewis. IT,
JOHN VS.. Chesapeake and Ohio railway
from Circuit Court of Botetourt; affirm
ed Judge Lewis
Ronald VS.. Bank of Princeton. from
~ Nor feof, atf "A
Judge Lewis
Wiz Beider & Co and others VS. Null
Inns personal representatives. from Cir
cnt Court of Shenandoah; reversed
Judge Lewis.
Alexander VS. Commonwealth, from
Circuit Court Of Clarke; reversed. Judge
Fauntleroy.
Cary VS.. Coffee Stemming Machine Com
pany. from Circuit Court of Bedford; re-
Versed. Judge FauntlerOy.
Bunch VS.. Commonwealth, from Coun-
y Court Of Louisa; reversed. Judge
Tauntleroy.
Greens administrator VS.. Griflns ad-
ministrator from Circuit Court Of Eau
quier; affirmed. Judge Fauntleroy.
Richmond and DanVille railroad VS..
Scott. from Circuit Court of Albemarle ;
affirmed. Judge FauntleToy.
Aston's administrator VS.; kendrickS'
from Circuit Court of Washington; ar
firmed. Judge Fauntleroy.
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Bright. and Chesapeake and OHIO COM
pany VS.. Hapner; rehearing denied.
Loghorne VS. City Railway Company,
two cases; rehearing granted
Morrison VS.. Wilkinson and ThrOck-
morton vs.. Throckmorton. Orders or SUD
mission set aside and cases reihsta'eu'
Catholic Notes.
Christmas eve will be fasting day Of
obligation. The masses at the Catheufai
on Christmas-Day will commence at b A.
NJ. ..