The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-04-24
Is 1894. Notice was given May 81. 1894.

le. 1894 Notice was given May Il, 1914
that on June 3, 1884. motion would Dc
made to dissolve injunction. Appe"an'
alleged inability TO procure the ainda'i's
of certain material witnesses, ana Dio'eo
thu court to continue the cause.
Held: l. Questions concerning con-
tnuance OF motions for dissoiying In
functions are subje ct to sound legal dis
erection, but since courts OF equity are
always open for granting preliminary IN
functions, or to reinstate those impro-
perry dissolved, such continuances VIII
only be granted upon the very graVest
necessity. High on mi. Vol. 2, Sec
1911 I'D Ed. l Hen. & NJ, y. ;.
2. The injunction was allowed long
enough before the motion to dissolve was
made for the appellant TO secure the
afIidavits alleged by him to be necessary.
LIABILITY OF A RAILROAD.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
vs.. Ampey. From the Corporation court
Of Petersburg Affirmed. opinioh py
Judge John w. Rely. III,
Held. |. No matters. however multi
farious. will make a pleading double II
constituting but one connected PROPOSE
ton or entire point. Stephens on Pr,
1928. 2Gs. 4 Min. Inst. 937: So Va, 95o. But
dupllclty Is mere matter OF FORM ana
can only be taken advantage OF by spe-
cial demurrer. and this Is abolished
2. Place where action arose need not be
stated I'm declaration. Code, sec. 5ZB; =
Min. Inst, 51f. 575. 500, 955-56.
g. Jurisdiction must be objected TO by
plea I'm abatement, and not by demurrer
Jurisdiction need not be averred IN decia-
ration.
4. Bills Of exception not prepared in the
usual manner, but merely noted IN n
stenographer's report Of the evidence
which the judge signs, will not De no
ticed. hut are considered as waivers OF
the exceptions. 4 motion TO exclude eN-
dence that has already been admitted
without objection must point out dis
tinctly exceptionable answers or state
ments.
;. The language used by a conductor In
giving directions about coupling or I'M
coupling cars on other occasions than
the one when the damage occurred, Is
relevant and proper evidence 10 show IN
competency In the conductor.
s. instruction, "that it was the duty OF
the defendant company to provide safe
and suitable machinery aud appliances,
and 10 furnish competent and vgiiant
servants for the conduct of its business.
and that the plaintiff had the right to
presume that It had done So held pro-
per.
T. The plaintin was compelled, under pro-
test. TO act az front brakeman In addi-
! ton TO his own duties as middle brake
man. The train had sixty-oRe cars, and
was ordered TO take on fifteen moro at
Petersburg. which had been I'm wreck
and were out Of order. Plaintiff told con-
ductor OF five failures to couple with a
| stick. and was ordered 90 couple by hand.
Conductor gave improper signal to en-
gineer and plaintiffs hand was mashed
and had 10 be amputated.
IL is every masters duty TO provide
| sound and safe machinery. materials. and
Instruments and he must examine and
keep them repaired. lie cannot excuse
himself by delegating this duty. lie must
| also employ competent servants. tie
cannot shelter himself from liability foi
injury Of a servant behind the negligence
| Of a follOw-servant.
when the injury 10 the servant has
been occasioned by the default Of fel-
low-servant. concurrlng with the negli-
| gence OF the master. the latter is liable
as though he only were at default"
g. There Is no measure 10 damages IN
such eases. and verdict will not be
disturbed unless It evinces prejudice, par
TALLY, or corruption in the jury.
OTHER CASES.
Dezendorf VS.. Humphries a Son.
City National Bank Us. Dezendorf, etc
! Law and Equity Court city Of Norfolk
| Appeal and supersedas. Bond I'm the pen
| atty OF 900 I'm each case.
Hasklns' Wood Nulcanizlng Company
vs.. Cleveland Shlp-Building Company
| Appeal and supersedeas. Bond in penalty
of $500.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
| VS.. Dunaway's administrator. Upon Z
petition to rehear judgment rendered
at a former day of this term. Petition
| refused.