Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-01-18
BATCH OF OPINIONS,
THE NEW SUPREME COURT OF Ap-
PeALS HANDS DOWN SIX.
many Lawyers fresent-A Com piicated
Case Arguments Heard
Yesterday

Suose Naitcr X, staples, CN-Judgc L. L.
Lewis, r. w. reatross. ESQ. Of Dan
vile; Senator James n. Stubbs. Of
Gloucester; Hon. James G. Lamb OF
Richmond; Miles VI. Martin Esq, Major
Il. IL. Nash. John G. Williams. OF Orange;
Hon. S. Il. witt OF Richmond: Hon.
George l.. Christian. OF l,ichmond: Sena-
tor Henry 4. Wickham. Acknowledgement
II. Taylor Scott. Judge John ". Ingram.
OF Manchester. Hon. Julian Bryant, Hi
Carter. Esq, Jackson Guy. Esq. Hon.
II. Il. Pollard, Hon. Il. Il. Munford. Major
Robert Stiles. W. Nj. Justis. Esq. George
Il. Wise, ESQ, 4. ". Patterson. ESD.
Captain George II. Carter. L. III. billiard.
Esq, OF Rocky Mount: 4. T. Staples ana
c. l.. Scott. Of Roanoke. W. a. Glasgow,
of Roanoke; Hon. w. r. Meredith. Sena-
tor W. T. Mcilwaine. Of Petersburg. and
others.
OFFICIAL BONDS.
Opinions were handed down in the fol-
lowing cases
Blanton. etc. VS.. Commonwealth. The
leading question in this case rested upon
the execution Of an Official bond. The
County Court order approving the bond
showed the execution OF p bond by eight
persons. The bond on which the Judg-
ment Of the court below was rendered
WAS executed by only seven persons. one
Of the sureties falling to sign. and his
name WAS inserted in the body .Of the
bond. indicating his purpose TO sign. The
court holds that the bond offered in evil
dencc was not the bond approved by the
court. and that the remaining surctics
who signed the bond are released from
liability. The suit was tried in the Cir
cult Court of the City of kichmond. and
was a motion upon the c,licial bond Of
Il. Il. Crowder. late Treasurer of Amelia
county. and his suToties.
The questions OF pleading raised in the
case were not considered. as the Ques-
ton passed on was decisive Of the case.
Judgment of Circuit Court Of Richmond
city for about five thousand dollars re-
versed. opinion by Judge Keith.
a COMPLICATED CASE.
Dublin VS.. Dniard. Sheriff. From the
County Court Of Rappahannock. Judg-
ment affirmed.
In this case. John T. Dublin was com
mitted to jail by a magistrate in Kappa
hammock for murder. where he Is still
held. and from which he seeks 10 he
discharged. because Of no trial in his
case. which should work his discharge.
He was indicted In the County Court,
and demanded 10 be tried In the Circuit
Court OF said county. In May. 1891, the
Circuit Court dismissed the indictment
Of its own motion. in the absence of the
plalnuff in error and over his objection
that the Circuit Court had no jurisdic-
tion In the case. Before the accused was
released from custody another warrant
was served on him, charging him with
murder In June he was again indicted.
The case was called. and a number OF
special pleas entered. which We're re-
5ected. He pleaded not guilty, the case
was continued, and the accused remand
ei to Jail on the 18th Of June n petition
for a writ OF habeas corpus was present
ed TO the Judge of the Circuit Court.
which was awarded. and when the Judge
Of the Circuit Court reviewed the case
he dismissed the writ. and decided that
the accused was not Illegally detained.
II was claimed. also. that the last act
Of the Legislature. repeating the Jurisdic-
ton OF the Circuit Court to try criminal
cases, except upon appeal. had no effect
upon cases pending in said court. The
court decides that the claim Of the ac-
cused that he has been in jeC pardy is not
sustained by the record. holding that he
had never been put on trial. The aCCus "a
claimed that he vas entitled to his dis
charge, on the ground that no Indictment
had been returned against him before
the end Of the second term Of the court
following his Imprisonment. The court
decides that the records do not sustain
this contention. He was arrested in NO
vembeT. indicted in December. and the
case remanded 10 the Circuit Court by
demand Of the accused. The court holds
that when the accused went to the Circuit
Court for trial. IL ended the jurisdiction OF
the County Court, and his claim could not
operate for his discharge. as he was
again indicted at the term Of the County
Court following the dismissal Of the
habeas corpus proceedings. opinion by
Judge buchanan.
GOES AGAINST GENERAL FIELD
Fed va the Commonwealth From the
Circu.; Court Of Albemarle. judgment
affirmed.
In this case General Field alleges that
IN October, lS9o. he permitted one Peyton
and a force OF hands who were engaged
in working the county roads 10 occupy
his barn ana stable, that the buildings
so used We're afterwards destroyed by
fire through the negligence Of the county.
its agents. ami servants; that his loss
from the fire amounted 10 N,lS750, and
this sum he prayed the Board of Super
S!=1rs to pay.
The Court decides that this case is on
al forms with case cited from SGtn
Virginia. that of Fry vs.. county of
Albem4rle, in which Judge Lacy then
geld: That counties being political sab
divisions Of the State cannot De suel
except in cases whore by statute such
suits are allowed. as In cases growing
out Of contracts with them. but not foi
injuries resulting from the negligence Of
their officers or servants" Opinion by
Judge Keith.
SIMILAR CASES.
Cash VS.. the Commonwealth. From the
County Court Of King George. judgment
affirmed.
Edsar Cash was convicted OF voluntary
nans!augh;er in April. 1894. and was re-
fused A new trial by the trial court. lie
:on.endei that ne WAS tried without plea
wnile the record shows that the plea OF
mot guilty" was made, 10 which
rrisoner made no objection. The question
o. venue was raised. but clearly proved
gr5unlless. Opinion by Judge CsrdweN.
Campbell VS. the Commonwealth (simi'
lar 10 the above. From the Circuit
cour; % King George. judgment afiimed
Opinion BY Judge Carlwell.
SELLING WITHOUT LICENSE.
Mitchell against Commonwealth. From
the Circuit Court OF Greene county. AZ
Armed.
The accused was Indicted in September
1872. ard convicted in January. lS.S, o
selling liquor by retail without license
4 writ Of error was awarded the accused
ard on a hearing by the Circuit Cour
the judgment OF the County Court Wa
affirmed lie was indicted three timos-
having sold liquor on three different &C
casious. Tho accused was fined 500 an
costs in two cases. ana the Court on
red judgment In one case for $40 an
costs. the aggregate amount OF the wv
fines. The defendant claims that IN
fines should have been the same. I'll
court holds that the trial court proceefe
properly In entering judgment. II wa
contcnGcd that the accused was no
served with a process informing him o
what he Was CHARGED. On this point ~
court decides that mis- presence and testl
fvlng was sufficient service and &c
Enowledgmcnt % such service. Cost
are also awarded IN reversing this case
Opinion by Judge Harrison.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Kirkwood Mitchell. Esq. was allow
10 practice in THIS court
Marshall against the Commonwealth
Writ Of error refused TO a judgment o
the County Court - Lee county reDdere
on the 25th OF November. 1874.
Home building and Conveyance Com
pany against the city OF Roanoke. Ar
fF-r 60 to