Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-09-20
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
THE NEW BODY's FIRST OPINION
DAY At STANTON.
A Number Handed DOw.a-iteal Es-
tate, Accident, and other Cases Of
Interest Disposed Of-The Regular
Proceedings.


The following opinions were handed down
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals to-day.
Dun VS.. the Commonwealth. Opinion
by Judge James Keith, presiding. From
the Corporation Court of Buena Vista.
Reversed In this case II was held
that the offence. under the statute
Of fraudulenuy removing. or secreting.
etc. goods levied on with intent
to defeat the levy. could be in
dicted an common law larceny. but that
II the Commonwealth undertook to frame
an indictmnet under the statute. the terms
Of the statute itself should be followed,
or language used substantially its equiya-
lent. and that therefore an indictment
which charged the defendant with unlaw-
fully removing goods which had been
levied on with intent to defeat the levy
was insufficient as common law indict
meDt for larceny, and insufficient as an
indictment under the statute, In that II
fraudulenly done.
Mills VS.. the Commonwealth. Opinion
by Judge James Keith. From the
toIpoIdllDu tOuTl VI tHs CITY ol Dan
Vile. Reversed
Sarah Mcfarland VS.. -. +. Moomaw
Opinion by Judge James Keith. From
the Circuit Court of Wythe county.
Reversed.
REAL ESTATE CASES.
McGavock VS.. Clark, ct. ais. opinion by
Judge James Keith. From the Cir
cult Court OF Roanoke. Affirmed This
was bill fled in the Circuit Court Of
Wythe county TO enforce 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 personally
bound for the price. The Circuit Court
enforced the lien for the balance of the
unpaid purchase money for the land, gave
a personal decree against Denniston as an
additional security in the event that the
sale OF the land itself did not produce
a sufficient gum TO satisfy the claim OF
McGayock, but refused personal decree
against the Max Meadow Land and I'M
provement Company, Clark, and others
upon the ground as to some that the evil
dence was insufficient TO establish the
liability, and as 10 others that IT did not
appear from the record that they were
properly before the court. From this de-
cree an appeal was taken, which in this
court was affirmed.
Gray VS.. the Commonwealth. Opinion
by Judge John w. Riley. From the
County Court Of Botetourt county. Al
firmed.
Robinetts Administrator VS.. Robinetts
Heirs. Opinion by Judge r. II. Cardwell.
From the Circuit Court OF Bland county.
Reversed. This was "A suit 10 surcharge
and falsify the accounts OF the admins
traitor. which had been regularly settled
reported to the court and confirmed some
years prior: and the commission 70
whom the cause was referred TO state
a final account OF the administrator
treated the former accounts as prima
facie wrong, and without sufficient proof
proceeded to restate them and ~ reject
vouchers formerly allowed, when IN his
Judgment they should not have been al
lowed.
Held: That exceptions to his report,
though general in their nature. are sum
cient when they, as in this case, are suif-
GENTLY specific TO call the attention OF
the trial court to the error into which the
commissioner had fallen In treating the
accounts as prima facie wrong; and such
exceptions bring up for the consideration
Of the court the question whether the evil
dence before the commissioner was suiil-
cient to justify him in disturbing the
former settlements.
Williams VS.. Commonwealth. Opinion
by Judge r. ii. CarGwell. From the
County Court Of Highland county Re
versed.
A SINGULAR CASE.
Joshua H. Slower VS.. the Common
wealth. Opinion by Judge John a.
Buchanan. From the Hastings Court OF
the city Of stanton. Reversed. The ac-
cused was indicted for stealing 81 IL
cents worth Of bacon. The jury found
him guilty Of the offence charged, ana
fixed his term OF confinement In the peni-
tertiary at one yer. and also found that
he had been convicted four times before
for like offences. for which he had been
twice confined in the penitentiary. The
trial court being OF the opinion that the
finding Of the jury brought his case within
the provisions Of sections 1893 and SO6 OF
the Code sentenced him to confinement
in the penifentiary for life.
This was held 10 be error, and That he
could only be punished under section %sJ'
Of the Code and confined In the peniten-
tiary 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 ne was Sulit} OF tht oHtHSf SAai stN'
necessarily decided that he WAS sane.
He is not entitled TO have that question
tried by another jury under section i0i2
OF the Code. nothing having transpired
since his trial which could cause the
court TO have any reasonable doubt as 10
his sanity.
Bertha Zinc Company vs.. Samuel Mar
tins Administrator. Opinion by Judge
John A. Buchanan. From the Circuit
Court OF Wythe county. Reserved.
|. Objections for n variance between
the allegations in the declaration and the
proof upon the trial cannot be made for
the first time in an appellate court.
2. 1t is the duty Of the master 10 cXer-
else ordinary care-that Is, such care as
reasonable and prudent men use under
like circumstances in providing safe and
suitable appliances and instrum entalities
for the work TO be done, and IN providing
generally for the safety of the servant
i'm the course of the employment, regard
being had TO the work and the dinicul-
ties and dangers attending II.
& In the use of dynamite the aster
must exercise that degree of care which
ordinarily prudent men would and DO
exercise in using ii under Ike circum-
stances.
4 A party who offers AN instruction
which correctly expounds the law upon
any evidence before the jury has the
right 10 have his instructions gwen as
offered.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
VS.. Miles h. Clark. opinion by Judge
George NJ. Harrison. From the Circuit
Court Of Pulaski county. Affirmed.