The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-04-03
SUPREME counr DKc,s1oNs.
Several Ernportant Cascs Cane TO An
End in that Tribunal Yesterday.

Richmond, Va, April 2.-In the State
Supreme Court OF Appeals to-day Judge
keith handed down Gil opinion In the
casS OF the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company VS.. Mrs. Elmora
Bowles. from the Circuit Court OF Rich
mond. Mrs. Bowles was injured by
jumping from car and sued In tine Cir
cult Court for $4,000. getting q verdict
for Sl.260. The first error assigned was
that the suit was brought In the name
OF Mrs. Bowles. by Aubrey r. Bowles.
htc next friend, and 1T was contended
that a married woman over the age OF
twenty-one cannot sue in this State by
her next friend. Thts the Court of Ap-
peals promptly over-ruled.
Exception Is also taken to- instruction
4, which was that in estimating damages,
the jury might take into consideration
loss OF time. expense OF cure. and men,
tai suffering caused by the injury; also.
future damages for less of health. time
and use OF limbs. etc.
This. the court says. seems to involve
elements of damage which would be
and which do not constitute any part
of the separate estate OF the defendant
in error On that grsund the court be-
low Is reversed
Another opinion by Judge Keith. of in
terest, was that of Bo:hen's executor
VS.. Jurgcns' executor, from the Chancery
Court OF Richmond
Mr. CHARLES j. Jurgens had bought nj
auct.?n n city lot which was advertised
to be l3S feet deep. MIR. Jurgcns CON
tracted TO build IL house thereon to
that depth. but afterah.s plan was made
he found tina. the lot was only 1os feet
deep. MIR. Jurgens filed bill in Chan
Gerry claiming that he was entitled to an
abatement of the purchase money In
answer n 1ot
III should not recover because the pr,n-
cry was sold in srOss and net by the
uc!end3nt. The court decides that while
there was no fraudulent Intent ON the
part OF Mr.. Boahen, It WAS an error: +hat
cantrae: of hazard had not besn
snoWh; that the appellee has the right
= recover, and that the tecren of ,ho
iower court must he affirmed
othcre cases We're as follows.
'uuse John w. Riely: Morotock In.
surahce Company VS.. Roedefter and otl.
crs' corporation Court Of the citv n,
Danville: affirmed. -
Judge r. III. Cardwell: Garland's adj.
ministrator, ct. ais, VS.. Garland's nd
mn ni,nistrator, ETC.; Circuit Court of the
city or LEnchburg; decree reversed
Judge Buchanan: Pierce VS.. Erica
Hustings Court OF the city OF Ports.
mouth; judgment affirmed.
Juuse Harrison: Chesapeake and
ONO Railroad Company VS.. Lash's nd.
ministrator: Circuit Court of the civ nj
LynchburG; affirmed
commercial Bank VS.. Rucker: Circuit
oourt or the city of Lynchburg dismiss
ed as improvidently awarded,
Carter VS.. Commonwealth. Co,r,,.
Court OF Scott county; writ of error re-.
fused.
spoor VS.. Pendleton. etc, Circuit Cour,
Oh Smyth county; appeal refused.
hunts administratrix VS.. Norro1,,
ana western Railroad Company: Cir.
cult Court of the city of Lynchburr
writ of error refused. Is
harrison, etc, VS.. West Lynchbure
Furniture Company, ct. ais. nnIsr &c 9
tition of Woodson Furniture Comnony
TO rehear an order refusing its petitinn
for an appeal. Petition refused