The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-22
STPRIME CDuHI on dPPEdL>.
Opinions Handed Down at Nytheville
Thursday.


WYTHEVILIF. VA, June 2l-.Special
These opinions were handed down in the
Supreme Court Of Appeals here yester-
day.
PitsnOgle vs.. Commonwealth. opinion
by Judge James Keith, p.
Pitsnoe1e was indicted for the larceny
of a wstch. The principal defence at
tempted was that the proof showing that
the watch was embezzled would not sus-
tain an indictment for larceny This
contention the court overrueld and af-
hrmed the Judgment OF the HustinsS
Court of the city of Roanoke.
f.. ID. Claiborne VS.. ID. Radford. etc.
Opinion By Judge James Keith. Z.
The plaintiff. before her marriage trans
ferred her personal property 10 trustee
for the sole benefit OF herself for NE.
and provided that at her death II should
pass 10 her children, or. If there are no
children. 10 her heirs-at-law. as real es-
tate. short time after the execution
Of this instrument. she married. and soon
thereafter filed a bill 10 annul the above
instrument. and have herself reinvested
with her rights and interests with when
she had clothed her trustee. her cOnten-
ton being that the paper merely made
the trustee her attorney or agent. and
as far as the children or heirs al law
were concerned. IL was testsmentary ma
its character. and that in both aspects
IL was revocahle. The court. however,
was OF opinion that II created valid
trust estate I'm the trustee 10 hold for
her life, and at her death for the bene-
MT Of her children. II any, and if not to
pass TO her heirs ar law. as real estate.
Weathcrman vs.. Commonwealth. Opin-
ion by Judge RELY.
In this case, the judge OF the Circuit
Court failed to sign the orders and pro-
ceedings Of the day on which the jury
returned their verdict 10 the court and
the same was duly recorded by the clerk
in the order-book. but signed the orders
of the subsequent days. including the
last day Of the term. and az the next
term. on his attention being called TO the
omission, he signed nunc pro tune the
orders Of the day of the preceding term
to which he had failed TO afiix his sig
nature.
Held: That II the signing Of each
days proceedings separately was essen
tial. the error had been remedied.
Hargrave VS.. Commonwealth Opinion
by Judge Rely. From the Circuit Court
of TaZewcll county. Affirmed.
Robertson vs.. Commonwealth. Opin-
ion by Judge Cardwen From tho COun-
ty Court Of Franklin county. Affirmed.
y. Rensch VS. Roanoke Cold-StOragc
Company. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Decree Of the Circuit Court Of Roanoke
city affirmed.
This was an action for libel under the
statute which is found in section &N.
The court held that the letter complained
Of was a privileged communication and
mat there was no evidence tending 10
show malice I'm its publication. The jury
properly found for the defendant and
their verdict was sustained.
Porterneld VS. Commonwealth. Opin-
ion by Judge Buchanan. From the
Hastings Court OF the city Of Radford.
Reversed.
T. Failure to charge the grand jury
after they are sworn. and before they
are sent 10 their room. does not prejudice
a party against whom they find valid
indictment. and Is no ground for revers-
ing a judgment against him ia that IN
dlctment.
?. Possessio Of stolen goods recently
after the theft has been committed, with
out any explanation az 10 how he became
in possession Of them. affords sufficient
ground for a presumption of fact that he
was the theft. and Is circumstance tend
ing 10 show that he was guilty OF break
ing and entering the house where the
goods were stolen.
3. The several circumstances, In case
OF circumstantial evidence. upon which
the conclusion Of guilt depends must
be fully established by proof. They are
facts upon which the main fact depends.
and must be proved with Ike degree or
certainty. and II any such circumstance
be not so proved. the jury should not
consider Il in reaching their conclusion.
White and others vs. Deneai. From
the Circuit Court Of Rockingham county
Appeal refused.
city Of Radford vs. Mcdonald. From
the Hastings Court Of the city OF Rad
ford Writ Of error refused.
The TagIs Mil and Mining Company
and others vs.. Boyd. From the Circuit
Court Of Goochland county. Appeal re-
fused
Dashiell VS.. Merchants and "lant-
ers Savings Bank. From the chancery
Court Of the city OF Richmond. Petition
for rehearng refused.
Violet and others vs.. city Of Alexan-
dria Appeal and supersedeas awarded
TO a decree OF the Corporation Court Of
the city OF Alexandria. Bond In the
penalty OF 800.