The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-12-06
SUPREME COURT CASES.
sONE IMPORTANT OPINIONS HAND
En- DOWy YESTERDfI.
Responsibility OF n Railroad and the Duty
ofthn Passengers DeHned-tnique VIII
Casc-Oiher Interesting Opinions.

4 number OF important decisions were
rendered by the Supreme Court OF Ap-
peals yesterday. Following Is digest
| Of the opinions:
Peters Receiver VS.. Anderson From the
Corporation Court OF Norfolk. Affirmed.
| Opinion by Lardwell, judge.
Sale OF property negotiated by receiver
| for $500. with commission OF ~ per
cent. to Anderson FOR services IN erecting
sale Ten thousand paid in cash. out OF
| which Anderson claimed commission on
| piled TO the debt due the receiver. An
derson was entitled TO commission only OIL
the sum paid. and on deferred payments
! as they might De made, with. interest
| The deferred payments were secured
! by deed Oh trust. The trustee sofa, ana
| the highest bid was slv,iV nut the re-
| CeiVef, 10 protect his trust ana prevent
| q sacrifice. had required OF the purchaser
a guarantee that the property shoulu
/ bring the sum of Si5.Vv Accordingly .ho
| purchaser PAID such sum, "hlch altei
dclucting expenses OF sale. etc. amounted
TO forty-odd thousand dollars, 30 be APP
! piled TO the debt due the receiver. An
derson demanded his commission on TINS
sum The receiver contended he was On
titled to commissions only on the sum
bid at the sale (Sl0,lV0l, and not on the
sum guaranteed him solely through ms
personal efforts.
Held that true construction Of the
mandate OF the court H. Ssth Va, supra,
entities Anderson to commissions on the
net sum realized at the trustee ; sale.
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS;
Williamson vs.. Commonwe alth; From
the Corporation Court OF DanVille. Ike
verseG Opinion by Cardwen judge.
This was a prosecution for receiving
stolen goods. knowing them 10 nave been
stolen. Conviction. Motion 10 set ASIDE
the verdict as contrary 10 evidence over
ruled. and appeal thereon.
The law is laid down by Judge Burks
in Hays case, 81 Graf. To convict under
the statute four things must be proved.
J. That the goods or other Things hau
been previously stolen by some other
person. g. That the accused bought or
received them from another person, OF
aided ia cOncealing them. g. ha'' "hei
ne bought. received. or aided 20 cohceal
them, he knew they had been stolen. &
That ne so bought. received. or aided 10
conceal them malo amino, or with us
honest intent.
The facts as certified by the court be-
low established only the first lngrcdlehl
of the crime, and so tie Judgment must
be reversed.
Crump vs.. Commonwealth. from tne
Hastings Court of Manchester Aflrn-
ed. Opinion by Rely, judge.
Held J. The record rcciting that Inc
Jurors were sworn the truth OF ana
upon the premises to speak II is SUM-
Client. the presumption hcing thdt tne
oath was in due form SG Va. i55, Rob
Pract. (Old). III. 4 Leigh. go
z General demurrer Overrued. hccoll
does not show jOinder therein rms not
available error here. Gimcr SN
g. Court instructed jury orally. instead
Of in writing. as 10 what cohst .u,,a
tho crime Of rape. This is common prac-
tice OF the trial courts and unless OBJ
iected to at the time for some good iea-
son. il Is not error Graft, ~.
T. Not necessary that indictment p %,
4 Of ~
Graft $40. % ID. Ei.
Verdict being received by court ana
recorded by clerk. IL Is unnecessary mar
a ny foreman OF the jury %
Va, s3i
INTERESTING WILL CASE.
Tompkirs by. &c. vs. Grinin's Execu-
tors From me Chancery Court of the
civ of Richmond. Affirmed. Opinion 10y
Judge Buchanan. Construction OF a VIII
d." It M TO Miss r. may God bless her, is
NV sincere prayer. ] leave In fee-slmple
0ne-third OF my entire esiate-that 81.
after paving the above lcgacics. mean
bv my entire estate all of my ne IN
ei,,ance real estate and personal pro-
perry" with an injunction that 1t be paid
Testator had four policies aggregating
Sf5Du all for benefit Of his Wlte, VINO
died before him. The bylaws OF three OF
the insurance companies provided mat II
beneficiary died before the insured, ana ne
failed TO designate another bcncnclai3.
the proceeds of the policy should hc pdlu
TO the relations Of the insured M the or
der named in the policy and IN no event
should insured have the right 10 dispose
Of the proceeds by Will He designated no
other beneficiary. and 10 is conceded that
proceeds OF these three policies ala not
pass by his will, but became the property
of his two infant nieces In accordance
with said bylaws. To these nleces ne
devised the remaining two-thirds OF his
estate after payment Of certain l,gacies.
Admitted that If testator intended 10 dis
pose OF all four policies by his VIII, the
nieCes had 90 elect whether 10 take under
the will or against IL, and that the ac-
ton Of the court in electing for them 10
take under IL was proper
The only question left Is whether tesla
tor intended by the seventh clause TO de-
wise the whole insurance on his life, or
only the one policy FOR 5000, which he
had the right 10 devise
IL is clear that ne intended 10 devise all
of the policies. and not merely one OF
them. his words being all my life in
surance." and not 5000 only of the sl5.-
900. FOR which his life was insured.
LIABILITY OF 4 RAILROAD.
jameson vs.. Chesapeake and Ohio Rail
way Company. From the Circuit Court
by President Keith
j. purchased ticket from Newport
News TO Ewels Station, which the train
passed without stOpuina She went for
ward TO seek the conductor. and when
she reached The platform, having large
bundle under one arm and ANAL pack
age under the other the train suddenly
accelerated its speed so as 10 cause "A
Jerking motion. whereby she was thrown
from the train anu injured. She brought
suit NerMct for $1,000. subject 10 the
defendants demurrer TO evidence. De-
muwer sustained. judgment dismlssinE
her suit. and writ OF error
Held. Without doubt defendant in error
was guilty OF negligence IN not stop
ping the train at tWells. and giaintn
had an ample remedy, and would haze
been entitled 10 fun CONDENSATION in
damages for whatever loss or inconveni-
cnce she sustained ty reason OF This neg
lect She sues. however. for damages
for injuries sustained by the fan from
the train. The failure to stop at the
station was not the prQximaie cause oil
those injuries but her injury was Directly
attributable 20 causes wholly independent
OF IT. Her own negligent conduct IN pc
INK on the platform, encumDeied "th
bundles so far contribute % the acclucht
as 10 preclude recovery. The only neg
lect of the company was It's ialiufe TO
stop at EWell's. which was the remote.
and not the prO~imdte cause or the IN
fury and cannot be taken as constituting
an clement OF decision IN TINS cas-.
Railroad corporations owe hlsn De
cree of duty TO their passengers. They
must DO all for their safety ihdt human
skill ana foresigh, may suggest ana are
,esuonsible for any. even the slightest,
neglect but that the passenger may hoid
ne cnrnnanv TO this high degree of re-
enonsihilitv II is incumbent upon him
to occupv the position upon The train as
ef~ned 10 passengers, and n he Nolun-
,orii,- assumes a position OF peril and
ininrx results from il, he cannot re-
novor" See If Graft. O91' 81 Graft.
Soo, Ia So: IS Va. Ga.
- declarations OF the conductor made