Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-03
MUST SERVE IT OUT.
Writ Of Error Refused Morsandsld, the
AQuia-Creek Train-RObber.
The supreme Court sus;ains the
Act Taking Chanccry Cnscs Out OF
the Norfolk Corporation Court
Note of ". =. DashicIl.


day refused to grant writ OF error in
the case Of Charles A. Morgan alias
Morganiield, the Aqua creek train-robber
who was convicted at the March term
Of the Stafford County Court and sem
fenced to eighteen years in the pcni,en-
tiary.
The effect Of this refusal is 10 deny
the noted criminal a new trial. and TO
affirm the judgment Of the trial court
The record has now been reviewed by
both the Circuit and Supreme courts.
and no flaw having been found by either
II would seem that there is no hope for
the bandit. whose life has been one Of
romance and crime. but to suffer the
laws penalty for his evil deed.
The court did not deliver an opinion in
this case. as It was simply an applica-
ton for a writ Of error and supersedeas
on which the matter might be gotten
before this tribunal for hearing. The
Troublesome $50 pages OF typewrlting-
| was filed by Senator Little about two
weeks ago. when he presented the petit
ton In behalf Of his client The court
! upon examining the record refuses TO
| open the case Tor hearing.
Now that the Morsanlield case has
been disposed Of it is likely that the trial
Of his acc0mpliCe, Searcey, will be held
! without delay. This was postponed TO
await the result Of Norganfeld's appeal,
! 50 that I'm the event that the latter was
given a new trial, Scarcey, not having
been convicted. could still appear against
| him as one Of the Commonwealth most
importan. witnesses.
THE MANDAMUS DENIED.
Yesterday was the last opinion day OF
this term Of the Supreme Court, which
| will adjourn to-day and meet IN Wythe-
vile. June 10Th. This is a working court
and very fen, If any. cases thai nave
! been argued remain Undecided. not ~
| years has the docket been so nearly
cleared. Besides the four opinions handed
| down yesterday a number of motions
were passed upon Among the most I'M
! pOrtant Of these latter were the reiusais
| to grant wits of mandamus that were
/ asked for by Judge Thomas II. WILCOX
| Of Norfolk. In one Of these CLERK Roy
ster. Of the Corporation Court Of Norlolh'
| was made the defendant. and In the othei,
| where the action WAS in the interest oi
the estate of W. If. Haynes, Judge A.
| r. Hanckel, Of the same court was tHc
defendant. The two cases were pending
! IN the EtElD4h vi iiNl AAt'Ai '-'''t'
10 January J. 1856 when boy an act on Inc
last LEGISLATURE all chancery causes were
! TO be removed to the newly created court
Of Law and Chanccry If the city of NOR
folk The rcfusals TO issue writs or man
darnus were based on the ground that the
act establishing the additional court hp-
! vided expressly that on January l. IA''
| jurisdiction 10 hear and determine al
! c.uses in chancerv arising IN the city or
q
OF Law and Chancery and in me or
/ cui, court Of said city. AMI that all such
causes then pending in the CORPORA uoh
Court should be removed 10 the Court
Of Law and Chancery.
The petitioner contended that under
section a Of article 8 Of the CONSTITUTION
Of the state. the Corporation court ol ,le
city Of Norfolk was tribunal WIN
similar jurisdiction as might be given
t,. The l4,y 10 the circuit courts 81 TINS
| state: hat the circuit courts h"4 me
rl.bt 70 hear and determine chducrIy
| causes and thai so much Of the act at
! February ~. 1894 creating the new '"u'
! ia No,follt,. as sought To- deprive Inc
CORPORATION Court of it, Jur'd'c'l'h 10
hear ami determine such causes N"a }"
conflict with this provision OF Nls ''',-
.ttution. and therefore nun anu W. u.
| Tine supreme Court took different we"
f tho matter.
THE W. s. DASHIEIL NOTE.
o,o ~ the cases decided was that OF
parker Dashiell against the Mer-
| chants and Planters Bank from the
! Cb,rccrv Court Of the city of Richmond
| Tbis involved the ownership of a note
| f,r So drawn by W :. DashieH 10 M
MN order. and payable twelve months
| inter date at the State Bank of virginia.
| I3v n deed. dated May p 1880 ana re-
| corded In the Chesterfield County ClcIk +
| office. j. H. MONTAGUE, II. \. rabb. am
". J.. Royal, trustees, conveyed 10 j.
| b. TAYLOR. trustee, a certain tract OF
| land IN Chesterfield county i'm trust o.
| secure Il number Of notes, among them
| tho one from ". ). Dashiel. At ma
| thrifty of this note IL was taken up 10y
J. Parker Dashiell. appellant with tht
! check Of Thomas Potts a co.. OF winch
! firm ]. Parker Dashicll Is m mb'r, ana
! held by him until about February ~
| 1872, when b., as the holder OF the nott
| for value. required the trustee TO pro-
| coed 10 advertise the property for sale
| I'm accordance with the provisions OF the
| trust Tho Merchants ana Planters
| Bank filed its bin of complaint IN the
Chancery Court Of Richmond against
j. Parker Dashiell ami r.. Il. Taylor
| trustee and obtained an injunction re-
| str,ining the trustee from advertising
|
! order of the Court. The hill set forth
that ". : Dashiell had. 10y deed dated
! about July -. 1891. In consideration o.
| 500 conveyed 10 the bank al OF MS
| ri-ht. title and interest in this tract
| II land. upon which the note in question
was secured. and charged that at ma
| mrity Of this note, May y. 1891. II was
| paid and satisfied by ". ;. pashien OF
| his agent. j. Parker DiShieiL and came
.N.# ..IN 100
! That J. Parker Dashicll mad wrOnefully
/ and tortuouslv obtained possession OF II.
This was entirely denied by j. Parker
| pashieu. whose testimony as 10 the pos
| session of the note was borne out 10y
! Thomas Potts. The appellant Showed
| that he had received two checks, aggrc-
! eating the sum of SCt2. from ". ;. pa
| shiell. bur that this was at W. ;. pa
| sh.clfs direction TO 20 10 the credit OF
! the latter on an account owed by MIN
! TO J. Parker Dashicl Among other
! things. the supreme Court held that the
| posses sion Of the not'. not marked
| paid" was prima facie proof Of its
| ownership in the holder. J. Parker pa
shell.
OTHER CHESTERFIELD LAND.
Another controversy decided was that Of
| George Patch and others against Morris
| sett and others. The case came from the
! Circuit Court Of Chesterfield. and involves
q lot Of land situated in thesity of Man
| chester. The effect OF the reversal of the
! Judgment Of the lower court is that the
! land .n question can be- sold. The points
/ # cont sntion by the plaintiffs before the
| lower court were that the trustee. Georg
! r. Gary, had advertised the property for
sale In violation OF the terms and condi-
! tons IN accordance with which he was
| required 10y the deed 20 sell. that when
| they bought the land they were Informed
| nat the sum of 50 was due % the city
| N Manchester for paving-taN, which was
! "a lien on said land. ana that the land IN
J question was part OF the lands OF which
| James Briggs died seized and possessed,
| AID which was conveyed 10 +. j. Morris
| sett and Harriet V. NOrrissett by a dee!
| Il partition win T.. y. Bass and Mary
! T.. Bass his wife. and that the land Of
! which this is part was acquired 10y
! Briggs by two deeds-One from William
! Harman. dated May H. 1851. and ;he other
from Cecilia A. Granger. dated March
| 10. 1SO-ani that the decd from Granse o.
! contains a clause rescrying the family
! hurying-grouui OF thirty-two feet square,
with the privilege of ingrcss and egress
! 10 the same
| TN. court held that the nlVing-taX due