Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-12-13
IRON GATES TAXES.
yhg Mil Be Paid in the County in
Which The Land Lis.
.,curs or A MARRIED WOMAN.
,.,,rcstire Opinion rs 20 Her Pow
.rs 10 sue and De Sucd-A VIII
sri, nccidcd-othcr Opinions of the
court Of Appeals.

-.. ,f the most important OF the onin-
,... delivered I'm tho Supreme Court q
,,,,als yesterday was that OF Judge
r'rrueu Ia the suit Of NJ. $. Cahoon.
.....urer OF Botetourt county. against
.,. iron Gate Land and Improvement
r.-nany. The case came to the Court
~ Anrcais on an appeal from a Judgment
cha circuit Court OF Allegheny. In
.ts petition for an appeal several groands
...-. AS. cned. upon which it was claimed
.A.. The act of the Legislature incor-
,s-at.ug the town Of Iron Gate should
D.. hold 90 be unconstitutional. The court
.b..r,ed that the first thing 10 consider
,.s whether the act was in conflict with
chat section Of the Constitution OF Viz
,,-.a which provides that mo law shall
embrace more than one object. which
shall De- expressed IN its title" 1t appears
cha. while the greater part Of the town
.f lnn Gate is located IN Allegheny,
"a .mln part Is in the county of Bote-
isrri. and the suit arose IN an effort on
r nlrt 90 the Treasurer OF Botctourt
q, collect taxes on such part Of the town
Ill. s Situated in Botetourt county. To
rrnylment Company and a purchaser Of
nf from 10 filed a bill in the Circuit
,alr. Of Allegheny. praying an injunc-
t0n TO restrain The collection Of these
taxes. alleging that by the act of incor-
,1rau0n an OF the property within the
iiu.t, of the town of Iron Gate was in
The county Of Allegheny. and liable only
1 taxes therein. and. further. that the
axes s0ucht 20 be collected by the Trea-
.r.r ~ Botetourt county had already
h..n collected by the Treasurer of Allie
cA.rv The injunction was awarded. and
arerward. 10y tine decree appealed from,
,.rreiuated.
Tho decision quotes the title OF the act
eco incorporate the town of Iron Gate,
Sd " and after reciting the preamble.
.r.s the whole OF the fourth section of
DE act. out OF which the controversy
ir0so This section stipulated that the
nho'e Of the town Of Iron Gate should be
.esmed o. be within the county OF Ale
.tany. and that the courts and officers
Or that county should have exclusive
rrsiction. etc. Section 4. the opinion
SAYS when read I'm connection with the
rtamhle OF the act plainly changes the
s-urdary line between the counties of
llss hany and Botetourt The matter Of
Banging the boundary OF county, be the
rsrer In which the people of the county
aee interested, and OF which the title
o. The act purporting 10 thus affect their
interests should fairly apprise them.
"Ihs provision Of the act" says Judge
Carlwcu cannot be sustained as ger-
name 10, or connected directly or Indirect
y with. the general object expressed in
,ta title. il IS. therefore. in conflict with
ite Constitutional provision quoted"
The fourth section of the act was de-
dared unconstitutional and void, ana tie
SQUIRT held. further, that when the tract
. land formerly taxed in the county cf
aleghany was divided into lots or
mailer parcels, the lots or parcels lNing
within the county Of Botetourt could he
INFECTED 10 taxation only in the latter
ounty. Judge Cardwolrs conclusion is as
r.0ws: "The decree APPEALED from Is in
is respect reversed and annulled. and
.fis court will make such decree IN the
ease as the Circuit Court OF Allegheny
county should have made, dissolv ng the
Injunction awarded, and declaring sec
ton Of the Acts Of Assembly inccrpo-
rating the town of Iron Gate, Session Acts
lge-lse0. page 1884, null and void
INTERESTING WILL CASE.
Judge John W. Rely prepared the
opinion IN the will-case Of Robertson and
others against Hardy's Administrator and
others This controversy hinged upon
the construction of the first second, and
Hh clauses Of the will Of John c.
Hardy by the terms Of these clauses
te testator loaned the tract OF land on
vhlch he resided to his wife during her
lifetime, with all other property belong
ing TO him, for the benefit Of her and the
three Youngest Children said tract of
land al the wifes death 10 go to William
Joseph Newton Hardy, and all personal
property remaining al the wife's death
% b. sold and equally divided between
fta three daughters of the deceased.
Tho nth clause also stipulated that the
wife had the right to give any Of the
children anything that she might think
proper II they left her or needed assist
a1ce
It was claimed by counsel for the APP
ptliants that the language Of the fifth
clause negatives the construction that
The testator intended to invest his wife
with the power Of absolute or unlimited
disposition over the personal property.
in that DC authorizes her 10 give anything
sia may think proper to give TO The
children This would be superiluous If
She had the absolute estate. but II is
not sufficient to repel the plain implica-
Hon from the words Of the second
clause of the gift of the absolute es-
tie. The Court Of Appeals holds that
DE DEGREES Of the Circuit Court of Din
Mlle county were errorless. and were
therefore affirmed.
AS ENGINEERS NEGLIGENCE.
The case Of the Seaboard and Roanoke
Railway Company against JoyneT's Ad-
ministaior was also decided. This was
an action OF trespass on the case brought
iae Circuit Court Of the coun-
~ o. Southampton 10 recover damages
Joy The death OF the plaintiffs intes-
'alt' caused. as alleged. by the ncsil-
A.ace " the defendant company.
lAe demurrer TO the third, count or
ihe declaration Med in the lower court
vas ile only noint insisted upon before
,he Court Of Appeals. From this count
N appeared that Sinclair Joyner was run
over ana killed b. q local freight train
OF in- defendant company about three
-ihiisi yards nom Branchville Station,
..hl Ioyner was plainly within sight OF
me engine from lhe time the train left
.ianehvile until the locomotive struck
'tNtrH body. Dealing with the main
ons involved ia the case. 'Gige
N.ia. who delivered the opinion. IL The
'' st}s ina his decision: IT Is no
Ringer am open question I'm Virginia mat
except al crossings and places where
public have by law or custom, OF
ite acquiescencc Of the company 4
tshi 10 the use Of railroad property
..ai 'he railroad company has The eNdI-
'Ae rght to the uninterrupted enjoyment
VI it roadned. track. and other proper
'}. They owe no special duty 10 mere
It.itsserH. but they cannot with inn
nHliy inhlct upon them reckless or
tnI.n Injury; and. when Il a. SAID thdt
''} owe 10 trcspdssers only The duty
+. ordinary care. il Is intended merely
ay that trespassers are not entitled
mat pI0yident circt inspection. which,
tl Ter as possible fOresCes and fOrestalls