Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-01-25
DUTY OF INSPECTORS
Important Decision by the Supreme
Court Touching Our Oyster Laws.
III INTERESTING LAND CASE.
Against the Suing Stockholders sus-
tained--Other Matters.

Yesterday was opinlon-day In the SUI
prefne Court Of Appeals. and six decisions
were handed down.
OF these two were quite important and
involved discussions of intricate and in
teresting technical points. They were the
cases OF James b. Thruston against
Thomas Il. Hudglns oyster-inspector
etc. and r. Lee Brown against the Bed
ford City Land and Improvement Com
pany.
The former came before the Supreme
Court from the Circuit Court Of Mathews
county, upon a writ of error. Thruston
filed petition in the lower tribunal pray
ing for a writ Of mandamus against Hud-
gins one OF the oyster-inspectors of
Mathews county. TO compel him TO give
notice to Sidney T. Matthews and T.
Conkling TO remove their stakes and
other distractions from certain oyster
grounds. and In the event of their failure
TO remove such stakes and distractions,
after they had received such notice TO
compel said eystcr-inspector to remove
the same himself, at the costs OF
Matthews and Conkling. To this petition
there was a demurrer. and this was sus-
tanned. and the petition dismissed. 1t
was in this form that the controversy
came up to the Supreme Court.
THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGATION.
The plaintiff in error alleged in his
petition that Hudgins had assigned 10
Matthews and Conkling. as a reservation
for planting oysters and shells, twenty
acres. or some part thereof. in MooJack
bay, lying in Mathews county, and that
In some part thereof there is a natural
oyster-be rock, or shoal. and contends
that such natural bed. rock. or shoai
cannot be assigned 10 any person for his
exclusive use or enjoyment. but must be
held In common for the beneht OF all
the people OF the Commonwealth. He FUR
ther alleged that the petitioner ana other
citizens had given notice 10 the inspec-
tor requesting him TO give notice to
Matthews and Conkling to remove their
stakes etc. and that Hudgins had re-
fused 10 do this. and had also declined TO
remove the said Instructions himself.
Section 2i53 OF the Code provides that
cit shall not be lawful for any person to
stake in or use for the purpose or plant
ing oysters or shells, or for deposlting
oysters while making up s. cargo for mar
ket any natural-oyster-bed, rock, or snoai'
or any part thereof: nor shall any person
who may have occupied and staked on
such natural bed. rock, or shoal continue
10 occupy the same. Each Inspector snail
require any such person within his limits
10 remove all oysters planted, ana all
stakes. watch-houses, or other obstruc-
tions from such natural beds. rocks. or
shoals: and IT, after notice such person
refuses or fails TO remove his stakes or
other Instructions. the same shall be
removed By the inspector at the cost OF
the offender. and. moreover, such offender
shall be fined not less than so nor more
than $1,000"
The decision. in succinct terms, ex-
plains the law relating TO grounds to be
assigned by an inspector. and TO the
rights and privileges OF the holder OF
special grants and the people at large
OF the Commonwealth. The applicant for
oyster-grounds must pay the Inspector
a fee OF 81 and an annual rental OF 70
Gems for each acre assigned him. and ne
has the exclusive right 10 the use OF such
location as has been assigned him.
WHAT THE COURT DECIDES.
The decision in this case, which was
prepared by Judge Buchanan. states that
The case turns upon the question whether
or not the duties imposed upon an oyster
tnspector by the provisions of the Code
are purely ministerial In their nature.
or whether they are duties necessarily
calling for the exercise OF judgment and
discretion in their performance. III OF
the latter class the petitioner was hot
entitled 10 a mandamus upon the facts
stated IN his petition, and the demurrer
ought 10 have been sustained. Under
section 2l37 Of the Code II was made the
duty of such Inspector to ascertain
whether the location by an applicant
was such ground as could under the
law be set apart for the exclusive use OF
the applicant. To do this 1t would DC
necessary for the inspector TO determine
In m
tained any natural oyster bed. rock. or
shoal. whether 81 confiicted with the
claims OF riparian owners who had SUI
perlor rights under the statute, or was
for any other reason not subject TO Local
fIon by such applicant This required an
examination, investigation and the FORM
ing Of judgment on the part OF the
Inspector. and the court heid tnat ,he
duties OF such an official were. therefore,
not purely ministerial. but quasi-tudiciai
IN their nature. requiring the exercise OF
Judgment and discretion In their per-
Torrance The object of the petitioner
was. therefore, to compel the inspector
20 undo what he had done and make
him do a specific act without reference
20 his opinion on the subject
The Supreme Court determined that
mancafnus did not lie to compel an
oflcer 20 undo what he had done In the
exercise of his judgment and discretion,
and 10 do what he had already deter
mined ought not 10 be done. and decided
that the Circuit Court OF Mathews COM
nni,ted no error In sustaining the de-
murrer, which action Is affirmed.
The Brown Bedford Case.
The opinion Of the court in the case OF
Brown and others against the Bedford
City Land and Improvement Company
was prepared by Judge Keith and Is a
lengthy and exhaustive document, treat
ing clearly every phase OF the ccntro-
yefsy and affirming the decree OF the
Circuit Court OF Bedford county with
s,lght notifications. This was bill In
equity brought by II. Lee Brown and
eixty-two other stockholders OF the COM
pany, alleging that said company pnr-
chased from three OF Its directors Messrs.
CIaytor, Boiling. and Berry-certain real
estate at an exorbltant price. upon
which there was stiil due large sums Of
money and that In addition thereto the
three directors were paid bonus OF
30 shares OF stock OF the company; that
the company borrowed large sums Of
money at luxurious interest; that II con-
veyed real and personal estate 10 trus-
tees 10 secure bonds 81 the company.
agrre9ating 5000. without requiring Sc
curiiy Of the trustees for the due execu-
ton OF the trust: that J. NJ, Berry, at
that time president OF the company. pur-
chased back from the companys yendee
forfy-fhree lois Of land which had been
previously sold by the company, and for
which lots he paid or contracted 20 pay
about twice the sum which the company
4 IRA received. and that there was paid
>,sf ~ the funds OF said company more