Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-03-13
COURT OF APPEALS.

A very important decision Was Ten
dered in the Court of Appeals yester-
day IN the case of the Richmond aud
Allegheny Railroad Company and
others against the R. A. Patterson T..
bacco Company.
On August l, 1888, the Patterson
company delivered to the receivers OF
the Richmond and Allegheny road
lot OF of tobacco consigned TO Mann 5
Levy at Bayou Sara, La. The bill O.
ladiDg was in It's usual form aud st.pu
lated that if the destination was be.
yond the point for which rates We're
named in the margin the packages
might be delivered to any other carrier
to be transported to the ultimat. po!n..
and the carrier so selt cted should be
regarded exclusively - the s--at Of
the owner or consignce. l. also
mutually agreed that ne i.sl Jy Of
each carrier as TO the goods e. -tine5
beyond its own route should br ermi.
mated by proper delivery OF sm 10
the next succeeding carrier.
The tobacco was lost after If ieit the
possession OF the Richmond and Ale
ghany road, and the sole question slo.
mitted to tie court Tor is decision VS.
whether section 1895 OF the code was in
conflict with article /, section 5. clause
8, of the constitution OF United States.
it being agreed that if said section wa-
constitutional the Richmond and al
ghany Company was responsible for
the loss of the tobacco. By is decree
tie Circuit Court OF Richmond hel!
that the section of the code was 30. in
conflict with the constitution o: me
United States and the prayer OF the p..
titioner Was granted and a decree was
rendered in favor of the petitioner tos
the sum of $2997l, and the railroad
company appealed.
The section of the code referred TO
provides that when q common carrier
accepts any article for transportation
to 6 point beyond the terminus oils
own line or route ii shall lie deemed
10 assume obligation for Is sale ear.
rage to its destination unless AT the
tine OF acceptance the carrier be re-
leased from such liability by contract
in writing. signed by the owner or his
agent, and although there NAV be such
contract in writing, if the thing shipped
be lost of injured the carrier shall him
self be liable therefor, unless, within a
reasonable time after demand be MA lie.
be shall give satisfactory proof to Tie
consiguor that the loss or iDjagy did
not occur while the thing was 10 his
charge. Judge Keith, in 4 very able
oninion, decided that the section Of
the code referred to was constitutional,
and the decree was affirmed.
Judge Cardwell handed down the
opinion in the case of the New York,
Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad
Company against the Board OF super
visors of Northampton county. The
question involved was the power OF the
supervisors to tax the company for dis
trict school purposes. The court de
cided that supervisors had no right 10
levy tax on railroad, telegraph and
telephone companies for distric, school
purposes, and the decree of the lower
court was reversed and the Injunction
was perpetuated. Anticipating the
verdict of the court the Legislature at
its recent session passed an act 10 cor
rect the defects in the law existing
when the levy in Northampton was
made.
Lennon vs.. Herbert, trustee. From
the Circuit Court OF Fairfax. Affirmed.
Opinion by Judge Rely.
Williams vs.. Watkins. From the
Circuit Court of Charlotte county. Al
frmed. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
Richmond Union Passenger Ra.Way
Company VS.. New York and Sea Beaoa
Railroad Company. Wriy Of error ana
to judgment Of the Court
of Law and Equity for the city OF Rca'
moDd.
Commercial Bank of Jynchbarg V.
Miller and others. From the Circuit
Court for the city of Lynchburg. AZ
peal and supersedeas. Bond 500.
Mutual Life Insurance Society o.
New York VS.. Oliver. Writ Of error
and supersedeas to a judgment Law
and Equity Court city of Norfolk. Bod
s. 600.
Bradford Salt Company W. Norfolk
and Exporting Company
Court of Law and Equity city Of Nor
folk. Writ of error and supersedeai
awarded. Bond 800
Niche and ais VS.. Cochran and al;
Circuit Court of Albemarle. App-a'
awarded. Bond $500.
Early & Clark vs. Commonwealth
Writ of error and supersedeas to tue
Hastings Court city of Roanoke.
Hambrick and ais. VS.. Showalter ana
ais. Circuit Court of Floyd count!
Appeal and supersedeas. Bond sl90
Foard VS.. Gamble. Circai, CoaI!
city of Roanoke. Writ Of error refused
O'Hagan VS.. Commonwealth. VIZ.
Of error refused to the Husling7 Co'h
for the city of Richmond.
Wilson and ais. vs.. Wilson. Ciicu"
Court Of Augusta. Appeal and super
,edess. Bond 5000
Brock vs.. Commonwealth ffon
Princess Anne county. Writ OF EN-"
'1 Bouahton VS.. Mountain Lake Land
Company. Upon motion ot TIE . W E
1ellees to remove the above enl.5'
cause to Richmond. Motion grantee
md an order will be entered remove b
md placing it upon the priyaes~
iocket to be heard at the present ''I'-'
BIG LIGHT FOR JERSEY COAST
3arnegat Light, of the eastern e1'i'I
.f NJ. -. XII -o,,, have u