Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-12-06
COURT OF APPEALS.

the others get new trial and are &C.
quilted, Mary Barnes would be par
coned: if convicted, she would also be
convicted on new trial and might get
eighteen years; if new trials are not
granted, she would be no worse off than
she nov is and in any event she is safe
from lynching, as she fears would be
the case, were she taken back to Lu-
nenburg.
Maury vs.. the Commonwealth: from
the Circuit Court of Richmond. In this
case Richard L. Maury rendered cou-
pons in payment G; taxes amounting to
S4S. He also paid his taxes in money.
The petitioner claimed kat the State
was bound by eontracs tc receive thes-
coupons and that he is pcote cted in that
right by the Constitution of the United
States. The court does not question
that right, but does not consider its en-
joyment as being at all involved in this
litigation. After citing the law and the
authorities the court concludes: While
we are of the opinion thas the act re-
pealing section 40S of the Code is not in
conflict with the constitution of the
State or the United States, butts valid
and binding, and therefore that the Cir
cult Court did not err in dismissing the
petition, we are ofopinion that it should
have directed the coupons of the petit
toner to be returned TO him. The State
certainly ought not to retain both the
coupons and the money.
One of the most interesting opinions
was that by Judge Harrison in the case
of trustees of Emory and Henry College
and Martha Washington College VS.
Shoemaker College and involved the
construction of the will of the late
James L. Shoemaker, OF Estillville. He
left o fund for educational purposes and
directed that it should be used in build
ing college On certain lot in Estill-
vile to be dedicated by him fer that
purpose. But IN case the college should
not be built, he directed that the in
come therefrom should be expended in
educating pupils at Emory aud Henry
aud Martha Washington colleges. The
testator died without having dedicated
lot at Estillville for college and the
controversy is between Emory and
Henry and Martha Washington col
leees on the one hand and Shoemaker
College on The other as to which is en-
titled to the benefits of the will. Shoe
maker College was chartered in March,
1894, after the death of the testator,
and proposes to erect college buildings
at Estillville on lot conveyed by the
Gate City Land Company. The court
holds that the language Of the will is
plain; that be did not dedicate lot at
Es!illviile for college and therefore
the benefits of the will accrue to Emory
and Henry and Martha Washington
colleges.
Robert NJ. Burke VS.. Alice E. Shaver,
from the Circuit Court of Rockingham.
Opinion by Judge Cardwell.
The action was for breach of promise
of marriage, the declaration alleging in
aggrevation of damages seduction. The
jury gave verdict for 81 900. The
irst assignment of error is to the refus-
al of the trial court to give the follow.
ing instructions asked for by defend.
ant, to-wit: u. The jury are instruct
ed that if the plaintiff yielded to the
request of the defendant to have sexual
intercourse with her upon promise of
marriage IN ease she got into trouble,
such contract did not constitute legal
contract of marriage. 2. The jury
ara instructed that upon an agreement
between single man and single We
man TO have illicit intercourse and that
if pregnancy of the female should fol-
low the man agrees to marry the wo-
man, such an agreement is against mo-
rality and does not create legal con-
tract OF marriage
The Court of Appeals holds that the
instructions were proper and should
have been given. & contract for mar
riage," says the court, sis the mutual
agreement of mon and woman to
marry each other, and must satisfy the
legal requirements as to parties, con-
slderation, ETC., as other contracts
must. An agreement is void when the
consideration is future Illicit cohabita-
ton, no matter what other consider
alton may unite, or how skilfully the
object illegal might be clothed. TIE
Judgment of the lower court is set aside
and new trial granted
Judge James helt0, president Jam I.
ison vs.. Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
road. From the Circuit Court of James
City. Affirmed.
Maury vs.. Commonwealth. From
the Circuit Court OF the City OF Rich
mond. Affirmed.
Crump ys. Commonwealth. From
the Hastings Court of Manchester.
Affirmed.
Spooner's executors vs.. Hilbish's
administrator From the Circuit Court
of Albemarle county. Affirmed.
Burke rs. Shaver. From the Circnit
Court OF Rockingham. Reversed.
Williams vs.. Commonwealth. From
the Corporation Court OF the city of
Danville. Reversed.
Peters, receiver, VS.. Anderson. From
the Corporation Court of the city of
Norfolk. Affirmed.