Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1896-04-17
COURT OF APPEALS.

In the Court of Appeals yesterday
Judge Harrison handed down the
opinion in the case of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad Company vs.. Mo.by
The defendant was freight conductor
and few years ago was badly hurt in
collision between two trains. He en-.
tered into an agreement to release The
company from any liability for damages
upon condition that he should be paid
SIS per month for six months, and al
the end of that time he was not able to
return to his former duties he should be
given lighter work. Mosby received at
one time $500 from the company and at
', another time was paid $50. On both
occasions he signed papers acknowi
edging the receipt of the money and
declaring the company not responsible
for the injury he received. Subsequent.
ly, Mosby brough suit in the Chancery
Court at Richmond. He sought relief
from the paper he had signed releasing
the company for liability for damages
Mosby claimed that when he signed the
paper he was mentally incompetent to
enter into a contract The Chan
Gerry Court decided the case in
his favor. The Court of Appeals
reversed the decision and will
enter such decree as the lower court
should have entered. In other words,
it was decided that the agreement
Mosby made with his company is bind.
ing and he cannot now recover damages.
The court decided divorce
case in which the interesting principle
that husband may be held response
BILE for his mothers cruelty to his wife
was laid down. T. G.. Hutchins, a
young New York man, married Miss
Squibbs, of Brooklyn. The husband
with his father purchased a farm in
Warwick county in this State. The
wife was domiciled with her mother-in-
law and father-in-law in the farm
house. Hutchins being employed in
New York, continued to remain. The
wife, the records show, complained OF
cruel treatment at the hands Of the
mother.in-law Hutchins, and begged to
be either given another house on the
farm or removed elsewhere. This the
husband refused to do, alleging that
the home provided for his wife was
commodious and ample, and he could
not afford another. Thanksgiving Day
matters came to a crisis, when, as the
record states, the motherin law beat
the young wife so severely that blood
her hair and flowed down
upon her clothing. Mrs. Hutchins quit
her mother-in-law's home in War
wick county and sought prOtee
tion with a friend in New Jersey
The husband asked the Circuit Court
of that county for divorce, alleging
that his wife had deserted him. The
curt refused the motion, and the Court
Of Appeals affirmed this judgment.
President Keith, in writing the opinion
of the court, says that husband VINO
fails to remove his wife from the cruel
domination of his mother is guilty OF
cruelty justifying divorce.
By Judge Keith Gloucester Charity
School VS.. Nicholson, ETC. Nicholson
vs.. Gloucester Charity School. Circuit
Court of Gloucester county. Reversed
BY Judge Rely: Atkinson vs.. smith
Corporation Court of Manchester ke'
versed.
By Judge Cardwell Riggan ys. Rig
gan. Circuit Court Of Mecklcnourg
Reversed.
Judge John A. Buchanan DanylHe
Street Car Company vs.. Payne. Cor
poration Court of Danvlle. Affirmed
By Judge Harrison Garland vs.. Gar
land. Upon petition to rehear o ae'
cree at former day of this term. Ie'l'
ton refused.