Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-09-25
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

Court of Appeals at Staunton last week,
brief mention of which have heretofore
been made in the GAZETTE
Duffvs. the Commonwealth. Opinion
by Judge Keith, presiding. From the
Corporation Court of Buena Vista. Re-
versed. In this case it was held that
the offense, under the statute of fraud
ulently removing, or secreting, ETC.,
goods levied on with intent to defeat
the levy, could be indicted as COM
mon law larceny, but that if the Com
monwealth undertook to frame an in
dictment under the statute, the terms
of the statute itself should be followed,
or language used substantially its equiv
alent, aud that therefore an Indictment
which charged the defendant with un-
lawfully removing goods which had
been levied on with intent to defeat the
levy was insufficient as common law
indictment for larceny, and insufficient
es Indictment under the statute, in that
it omitted to allege that the act had
been fraudulently done.
McGavock VS.. Clark, ct ais. Opin-
ion by Judge James Keith. From the
Circuit Court of Roanoke. Affirmed.
This was bill filed in the Cir
cult Court of Wythe county to
enforce a lien upon real estate
sold by McGavock at Max Mea-
dows, charging that the Max Meadows
Land and Improvement Company,
Clark, Denniston. and others, were per-
sonally bound for the price. The Cir
cult Court enforced the lien for the bal
apce of the unpaid purchase money for
the land, gave personal decree against
Denniston as an additional security in
the event that the sale of the land itself
did not produce sufficient sum to sat
isfy the claim of McGavock, but refused
personal decree against the Max
Meadow Land and Improvement Com
pany, Clark, and others, upon the
ground as to some that the evidence
was insufficient to establish the liabili-
ty, and rs to others that it did not ap-
pear from the record that they were
properly before the court. From this
decree an appeal was taken, which in
this court was affirmed.
Robinett's administrator VS.. Robi-
nett's heirs. Opinion by Judge R. II.
Cardwell. From the Circuit Court of
Bland county. Reversed. This was a
suit to surcharge and falsify the ac-
counts of the administrator, which had
been regularly settled, reported to the
court, and confirmed some years prior;
and the commissioner to whom the
cause was referred to state final ac
count of the administrator, treated the
former accounts as prima facie wrong,
and without sufficient proof proceeded
to restate them and to reject vouchers
formerly allowed, when in his judg-
ment they should not have been al
lowed.
Held: That exceptions to his report.
though general in their nature, are suf-
6cient when they, as in his case. are
sufficiently specific to call the attention
of the trial court to the error into
which the commissioner had fallen 10
treating the accounts as prima tacie
wrong; and such exceptions bring up
for the consideration of the court the
question whether the evidence before
the commissioner was sufficient to justi-
fly him in disturbing the former settle
ments.
Joshua a. Slower VS.. the Common
wealth. Opinion by Judge John A.
Buchanan. From the Hastings Court
of the city of Staunton. Reversed.
The accused was indicted for stealing
374 cents worth of bacon. The jury
found him guilty of the offence charg-
ed, and fixed his time of confinement
in the penitentiary at one year, and
also found that he had been convicted
four times before for like offenses, for
which he had been twice confined in
the penitentiary. The trial court be-
ing of the opinion that the finding of
the jury brought his case within the
provisions of sections 1905 and 1906 of
the Code, sentenced him to confne-
ment in the penitentiary for life.
This was held to be error, and that
he could only be punished under section
1907 of the Code, and confined in the
penitentisry for one year, as fixed by
the jury.
The question of the sanity of the ac-
cused having been put in issue directly
upon his trial, and the jury having
found that he was guilty of the ofense
charged, necessarily decided that he was
sane. He is not entitled to have that
question tried by another jury under
section 1892 of the Code, nothing hav-
ing transpired since his trial which
could cause the court to have any
reasonable doubt as to his sanity.
Bertha Zinz Company vs. Samuel
Martins administrator. Opinion by
Judge John A. Buchanan. From the
Circuit Court of Wythe county. Re-
served.
L. Objections for variance between
the allegations in the declaration and
the proof upon the trial cannot be
made for the first time i'll an appellate
court.
Q. 1t is the duty of the master to
exercise ordinary care-that is, such
care as reasonable and prudent
men use under like circumstances
in providing safe and suitable
appliances and instrumentalities for
the work to be done, and providing
generally for the safety of the SER
-. =. ~ ,-,..-o octbo oron1oupoa oft