Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-11
rHE' FLEMiNG-r,LAIR SUIT.
an Appeal TO lie Tnken-Thc In-
sfructiops Given BY the Court.

/, Is quite likely that an appeal will be
taken In the case Of Warner l.. Fleming
VS.. Lewis II. Blair, In which verdict
was found for the defendant in Law and
Equity Court The case involved the
question OF Mr.. Blair's liability for dam
age to property OF Mr.. Fleming. result
Ing from the tearing down Of an adjacent
structure owned by Mr.. Blair The
Courts instructions In the case were as
follows:
The Court instructs the jury
}. That the burden OF proving that the
injuries complained OF were inflicted on
the plaintiff by the wrongful or negll-
gent acts or omissions OF the defendant.
or mis- agents, is on the plaintiff; and I'M
less they are satisfied by the evidence
that such is the case they should ma TOT
the defendant.
?. The defendant had the right to pull
down his store, No. 1922 eastman street,
and If they believe from the evidence that
h. notified the plaintiff properly, and In
Time. of his Intention Of so doing, ana TO
protect his Fleming's) house adjoining,
and that said defendant employed f. sit
terding as a contractor to pun down sali
stores and build new house in the
place thereof on the terms and connillons
set forth in the agreement dated April
a 1884, produced in evidence in this case,
and that said SitteTdng was a response
bic and competent and experienced man
In the prosecution of such work. ana me
work contracted to be done was capaDls
OF being done by the exercise Of skill,
judgment, and caution, without causing IN
jury to the plaintiff, then the defend
ant Is not responsible In TINS case TOT
any injury which may have resulted from
the acts OF said Sitterding or any OF MS
employees in doing said work, even II
said acts We're negligent and improper.
3. Ii the jury believe from the eviuehcr
that the collapse Of the roof of defend
ants buildings did not injure the western
wall OF Blairs building or the walls OF
Flsming's building adjoining. but that
said walls stood substantially uninJured
after said collapse; then. although the
apparent condition Of said walls might
justify the order of the Police Magistrate
OF the city of Richmond that both Blair
wall and Flcmins's walls should be pull
ed down. then such loss as Fleming in
CURED IL not chargeable to Blair.
I. The jury are instructed That although
they may believe from the evidence thai
the plaintiffs house was In q defective
condition. or that the wall on the eastern
side of the alley was bull, on n defective
foundation, these facts do not themselves
constitute bar 10 the plaintins re-
by the jury In estimating the damages, II
the jury believe from the evidence that
The plaintiff T. entitled to damagss.
>. And I'm assessing the plaintiffs dam
ages If they should think he is entitled
to any. they should take into considera-
ton the cost Of restoring his premises 10
their former condition. with reasonable
allowance for the improved condition
thereof, his damage from his alley being
undermined by being deprived Of the
lateral support Of the, adjacent soil. and
the costs he was subjected TO for re-
moving the wall under the orders Of the
Police Justice. and In case they shall be
lievc that the premises were rendered I'M
tenantable. and the tenants IN conse-
quence abandoned the premises and
ceased paying rent. then they shall also
take into consideration the plaintiffs loss
Of rents up to the time OF this trial.