Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-02-15
Court of Appeals Yesterday.

The Court of Appeals yesterday re-
yersed the Mary Miller case, and the
decision of the old Court as to the jur-
isdiction of magistrates, which has
given the people of Virginia so much
trouble, is now a dead letter.
The Mary Miller case involved the
conslitutionality of sections 4106-7-S Of
the Code of 1887, which confers the jur-
isdction upon justices to try certain
criminal offenses named in the first
section mentioned. The case began
in magistrates court, then went to
the County Court of Rockingham, was
then appealed to the Circuit Court o.
that county, and finally got up to the
Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court
was reversed January IA, 1892, the
case was reheard on April Is, and reaf
firmed on April 2lst, Judge Lacy Wig
orously dissenting. The decision of the
Court was that section 41O6 was uncon-
stitutional and that all cases enum-
Grated therein must be tried by jury
The case decided yesterday was that
of John Brown vs. Epes, sergeant OF
the city of Richmond. Brown was ar
rested for the larceny offs copy of the
Richmond Dispatch, valued at three
cents, tried by Justice Crutchfield and
sent to Jail. BE applied to the Court
of Appeals for writ of habeas corpus,
which was awarded. This brought be-
fore the Court the question of the con-
stitutionality of section 4l06 of the
Code of 1887, which had been declared
to be unconstitutional by the old Court.
A unanimous Court yesterday reverses
Mary Miller and holds that section 4106,
which confers upon the several police
justices and justices of the peace in ad.
dition to the jurisdiction exercised by
them as conservators of the peace con-
current Jurisdiction with county and
corporation courts of the cases
enumerated in this section, is constitu
tional and valid.
This relieves the cities and State OF
the enormous expense incurred in the
trial of petty criminal cases.
Brown was represented by Messrs.
George D. Wise and Charles w. Dun
stan and the case of the Common
wealth was argued by Attorney Gener-
al Scott, who followed exactly the
same argument he used in the Mary
Miller case and is naturally much graf
fled that the Court sustains him
throughout.
The opinion was written, BY Judge
Keith and is very strong paper.
Justices may now try petty criminal
cases, without waiting for the constitu-
tional amendments to go into effect.
Other opinions were as follows:
Holleran VS.. Meisil, etc., from the
Circuit Court of the city of Richmond.
Reversed; Judge Reilly delivering opin-
ion.
Clinch River Mining Co. vs.. Harri-
son, from Circuit Court of Russell coun-
ty. Reversed; Judge Cardwell deliver
ing opinion.
Exchange Building and Investment
Co. vs. Bayless, from Circuit Court of
city of Roanoke. Reversed; Judge
Harrison delivering opinion.
Justis vs.. Bohanon; motion to dismiss
overruled.
Pope VS.. Transparent Ice Co., and
Home Building and Conveyance Co. VS..
city of Roanoke. Rehearings denied.
Preston VS.. West Lynchburg Land
Company; appeals and supersedeas re-
fused.
Bell, etc., VS.. Farmville and Powba-
ton Railroad Co.; petition to rehear
filed.
John B. Minor, jr., and James E.
Cannon, esquires, allowed to practice
as counsel in this court.
Easley VS.. Valley Mutual Life Asso-
citation, argued and continued.