The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-04

fATf TTlVIT-s
Isgl-'y nag. az the case must be con-
sidered here on the whole evidence adj
duced at the first trial, ana II the Court
erred In setting aside me nisl verdict,
this court must rcinstate mat Verul,t
and enter Judgment Tor the plaintliI.
otherwise tile Judgment OF the second
trial stands.
A freight train passed by the barn.
situated In an open field about $40 feet
from the railroad. on pvin' nishei tiah
the road. and at the heaa on hollow
leading from the railroad towards the
barn. II passed about ten minutes be-
fore the fire was discovered, ana the pre-
pOuderancc Of evidence Is that strong
wind was blowing from the road towards
the barn, and that there was a draught
10 this hollow. that the barn took fire
on the roof and was seen as soon as n
caught. that ~ was kept lochee and no
one had been IN IL since I O'Clock that
morning: that one Of the owners and an
other person passed the barn a Few min
utes before the train passed; ana II was
not then on fire. Within Few minutes
and at a short distance, two other fires
occurred on the same size OF the rail-
| road. both az a greater elevation than
! the barn Tho Witnesses say % Is impos-
sihio that the fire could have ORIGINATED
from any other cause man sparks from
the engine and the evidence suggests
no other hypothesis.
Held: "The decided right OF authority
and Of reason is In favor OF holding that
the railroad company IL Is prcsumptively
chargeablc with negligence. and must
assume the burden Of proving that 10 had
used all those precautions Tor cOnhning
sparks or .cinders which have been already
mentioned as necessary.
II IS well settled that testimony IS adj
missiblc tending 10 show that the loco
motive on other occasions had emitted
sparks and communicated fire TO property
along IFS track for the purpose Of show
ing neeligence on the part OF employees
or defects In the construction or ite ma
chinery \. Y. L. and y. II. Co against
Thomas. - s. +. Rep. 26i.
Whether the fire was caused by the
defendant or the engine was out Of order
| or the spark arrestor the most Improved
KIND, were questions for the jury. Ger
tainly IL cannot be said that their con-
ciuslon was plain deviation from truth
and justice
Judgment reversed. and judgment en-
| tered here upon the verdict rendered at
SUMMARY.
The following opinions were handed
down In the Supreme Court to-day:
Judge James Keith:
Cool US. Commonwealth County Court.
Dickinson county. Judgment reversed.
Virginia Tennessee Coal Sc Iron Co. VS..
| William Fields & ais. Circuit Court Of
! Wise county. Judgment affirmed
Powclls ex'or vs.. City of Richmond.
! Chancery Court. city Of Richmond. De-
| cree affirmed.
COrbin vs.. Patton. receiver. Hastings
Court city OF Danville. Decree affirmed.
Boston Blower Co. vs.. Carman Lumber
! Co. Corporation Court. city OF Norfolk.
! Decree affirmed.
Judge John W. Rely:
! McNeighs admir- vs.. Chamberayne.
! Circuit Court city OF Alexandria. Affirm
ed
Benjamin & co. VS.. Madden Corpora
ton Court. city OF Norfolk. Affirmed.
MOrganstern ". Com. Hastings Court
city Of Richmond. Affirmed.
| Judge r. II. Cardwell:
Baltimore g Ohio Railroad CO. VS.
| Fews oxor.. Circuit Court Of Shenandoah
| Reversed.
Moss rs. Barham. Judge. Corporation
! Court. city Of Newport News. Writ OF
| prohibition denied.
Judge John A. Buchanan;
Martin g. others VS.. South Salem Land
! Co. &, others. Circuit Court Of Roanoke
county. Affirmed.
Ferguson q Fries VS. Gooch. trustee.
! Hastings Court. city Of Roanoke. Affirm
! cd.
Judge Geo. VI. Harrison:
Corr VS.. Lewis. Circuit Court OF King
William county. Affirmed.
Emmorson vs. Fay. Hastings Court. city
OF Portsmouth. Reversed
Paterson vs. q. & q. II r. CO.. Circuit
Court Of Nelson county. Reversed.
Mllcr VS.. Wills g. ais. Circuit Court m
WASHINGTON county. Appeal allowed
Bond 500
Commonwealth VS.. FuSs. Writ Of
error and suporsodeas to Judgment cir
cult Court. Russell county.
Chewing 6 Sands VS.. Wilkinson. CIR
cuit Court King william county. Writ
Of error awarded. Bond f20.
Cent trustee VS.. Walker e. MS. Circuit
| Court Pulaski. Appeal refused.
Shroidcr VS. Commonwealth. Corpora
| ton Court civ Of Newport News writ
OF error refused.
Torrol and als VS. TorrcNs ovor s. ais.
CORPORATION Court. city or Danvillc. Ap-
| peal refused.
Mechanism VS. Metals Circuit Court
Or bedford county Appeal refused
McNunorv r. ale vr. Com. Writ Of
hahcas corpus refused
Coalins ve sutton. arcuod by w. \.
Noncurc. Fsv for annellanf and A. T.
Chandler. ESQ., for appellant and con
| tinuod until TODAY.
The newt case 10 10 called IS Long trus
tee vs. Nuridan baltimore Co. 40. is on
argument docket.
CNote-Dirests OF Emmerson agains
| Fay and Martin against South Salem
| Company will be reported IN tomorrow
| paper. The latter is very long ard elab
| crate and it was found impossible 20 do
! Justice 20 IL in the time at the reporter
disposal) W. w. SCOTT.
|