Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-06

had no more stock for sale. but that he
could continue TO sell In conjunction With
another. who had an option on all the
stock ieIt, and divide the commissions
with him And. further. II the telegram
was held 90 contain the terms Of new
! contract u should have been promptly
accepted 10y tel gram order to make
II complete and binding agreement.
Upon the whole case we see 10 error in
the judgment complained Of, and 1t is
affirmed"
Mr.. A. H. Burroughs. Of Lynchburg
was counsel for the app liant, while no
one represented the appellee.
The Emery and Henry Case.
one OF the most interesting opinions
was that by jude Harrison in the case
OF the trustees OF Emory and Henry Col
lege and Martha Washington College VS..
Shoemaker College, and involved the
! construction OF the viii Of the late James
I L. Shoemaker. OF Estillvlle, Va. He left
fund for educational purpos 5, and d.
! rected that II should be used in build
| Ing a college on certain lot at Estill-
I vile. TO be dedicated by him for that
! purpose. But, in case the college should
not be built. he dir cted that the in
come therefrom should be expended in
educating pupils at Emory and Henry
and Martha Washington colleges. The
testator died without having dedicated
a lot at Estillville for a college and the
controversy is between Emory and Henry
and Martha Washington colleges, on the
one hand. and Shoemaker College, on the
other. as TO which IL entitled to the bene-
fits of the VIII. Shoemaker College was
/ chartered in March, 1894. after the
! death OF the testator and proposes to
erect buildings at Estillville on a lot con-
| veyed by the Gate City Land Company.
! The court holds that the language of
/ the will is plain: that he did not dedicate
a lot at Estillvlle for college. and
therefore the benefits OF the will accrue
TO Emory ard Henry and Martha
, Washington colleges.
Observation-Disclosures Case.
In the case of Robert NJ. Burke W.
Alice Il. Shaver. from the Circuit Court
! of Rockingham, the opinion was by
/ Judge Cardwell. The action was for
/ breach Of promise Of marriage, the de-
claration alleging in aggrayation of dam
/ ages. betrayal. The jury gave verdict
| for $500. The first assignment Of error
/ Is to the refusal OF the trla:-cOur'l 10 give
/ certain Instructions
The Court Of Appeals holds that the in
! structions were prop p. and should have
I been given "A contract for marriage"
/ says the court lis the mutual agreement
or a man and woman 10 marry each
other. and must satisfy the gal require
ments as to parties consideration, etc,
as other contracts must. An agreement is
void when the consideration is i'm
morally. no matter what other
considerations may unite. or how skill
fully the object Illegal might be clothed.
The judgment OF the lower court is set
aside, and new trial granted.
The Other Opinions.
The case OF Crump against the Com
monwealth from the Hastings Court Of
Manchester. was one Of those decided.
The opinion was prepared by Judge
Rely. and the ground upon which the
appellant based his appeal was that the
record did not show that the Jury was
duly sworn. The Supreme Court held
that this was sufficiently covered else
where i'm the record. The prisoner in
this case was tried on the charge of
heinous offence, and by counsel entered
a general demurrer TO the Indictment
which the court overruled. 1t was OBJ
jected that the record did not siow that
there was a joinder in the demurrer
which the Supreme Court says is not an
available error. The court also replying
to another Of the grounds of appeal
states that IL is a common practice OF
the trial courts TO instruct the Jury
orally as to the law of the case, and
that unless objected TO at the time for
some good reason 1t is not error to do
So The judgment OF the Hastings Court
Of Manchester Is affirmed.
In the case Of Williamson against the
Commonwealth. from the Corporation
Court Of Danville. the opinion was read
by Judge r. H. Cardwell. and il reversed
the judgment of the lower court. VIII
hanson is a colored man. who was tried
on the charge Of receiving stolen goods,
and the Court Of Appeals takes the
ground that the testimony as TO VII
liamson's knowledge as TO whether or
not the goods were stolen is insufficient
The Judgment Of the Circuit Court. OF
the city Of Williamsburg, and county of
James City. i'm the case OF Jamison
against the Chesapeake and Ohio railway
was affirmed. This suit was for damages
for injuries the appellant received by
being thrown from a car at EveTs
station The case was heard and YER
dict awarded the plaintiff in error in the
sum of 5000 subject to the defendants
demurrer. The. lower court. however.
sustained the demurrer and an order was
entered dismss'ng the suit. and to That
Judgment writ Of error was awarded
by one of the judges Of the Court Of
Appeals. The opinion was prepared by
Judge James Keith.
Motions. Petitions, &c.
Other business transacted by the Court
Of Appeals Yesterday. was as to-iows;
Harris. administrator. W. Chesapeake
and Ohio Railway Company Petition to
rehear denied.
Shenandoah Land and Anthracite Coal
Company VS.. Hise. Petition to rehear
denied.
Clifton Forge VS.. Brush Electric Com
pany. Petition TO rehear denied.
Moncure and others VS.. Wren and
others Appeal and supersedeas awarded.
Ayers Administrator VS.. Norfolk ana
Western railroad. writ or error anu
supersedeas awarded.
Richmond and West Point Improvement
Company VS.. town Of West Point. Writ
of error and supersedeas awarded.
Harman VS.. Franklin Stearns. Writ
of error and supersedeas awarded.
Atlantic Loan Association VS.. Pettus.
trustee. Writ OF error awarded
Stonebraker. etc. VS.. Hicks and others.
Appeal and supersedeas allowed.
Moseeys Administrator VS.. Chesapeake
and Ohio railroad. Writ of error refused.
Fort Wayne Electric Company VS.. Hoge
and other. Writ of error refused.
Board of Supervisors Of Powhatan vs..
Worth. Writ Of error refused.
Windsor W. Snowden. Writ OF error
refused.
Chapman vs.. Dixie Land Company.
Appeal refused.
Raub VS.. Otterback Cause put on
privileged docket for January term.
Munford trustee. vs.. McVelgh's Ad-
ministrator Further argued by Judge
W II. Staples for appellant and sub
mitted
News's Exis. VS.. Bass. Brown & Co.
Submitted.
Gaskins VS. HuntOn. Passed.
Goode * Co. vs.. Georgia Home Insu-
rance Company. Argued by c. NJ. White.
ESQ. for nlnintif i'm error