The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-20

the local and internal affairs Of the peo-
pie Of the particular locality which Is in
corporated hence the act OF Offering re-
ward for incendiaries Is ultra wires and
void and whoever contracts with "A cor
porati0n must put himself upon his guard
10 inquire as to its power under the laws
creating IL The decisions upon this
question have not been Uniform. II has
been held in Cransham IS. Roxbury. 7
GRAY. 87fS. i'm York IS. FOrschit. Q Pa. st.
sgl. that municipal corporations have such
power but the better opinion. as held in
crofut vs. CITY OF Danbury. g. Conn.
POI Baker vs. city OF Washington, : -.
c.. lsi. and many other authorities cited
seems TO be that they have no such power
In general
Section O. OF the charter Of the city OF
Winchester. I'm addition 10 other powers.
confers upon the city Council the power
Ito do All such things as IL may deem
proper for The prosperity. quite and good
order Of the city" is held not 20 confer
the power Of offering a reward for a
crime.
RIGHTS OF DEBTORS.
williams. administrator. etc.. vs..
C1arlt's Rem. 81 ais. From the Circuit
Court OF Frederick. Reversed. Opn-
ion by Buchanan. Judge
In an appeal 10 this court. where the
various debts decroed against debtor
are sevorally less than 800. yet aggre-
gate more than that sum. the debtor
has the right Of appeal as 10 all Of the
creditors though some be- less than 500.
Sustaining Winchester and Strasburg
Railroad COMPANY VS.. Culfft. q Graft.
777. 4 Minor. 1862 ga Ed But this does
not hold rs 10 the appeal Of a creditor
where the amount IN dispute as TO him
amounts TO 500. SHRED VS.. Smith. 100
W. j.. 1& 4 commits ION in chanccry
may bc required by any party 10 the suit
affected by his report 10 return the owl
dence upon which his report is founded
I'm order that the court may properly pass
upon exceptions thereto unless the APP
plications 20 have the evidence returned
is unroasonaby delayed.
In case AZ bar. commissioner returned
when requcsted a loose basket Of papers.
being "a portion Of the evidence taken.
The lower court passed uDon the report
without requiring the missing testimony
20 Doe adduccd.
Held. 10 be error and rcmanded 10 be
rocommittcd TO commissioner 90 consider
the evidence now in the cause. together
with such additional evidence as the
parties may adducc, and return the
whole with his report.
SUMMARY.
Opinions by President Keith:
Reeves Gait. trustee. VS.. VIM. Knabe
* co. From t'e Hastings Court Of
Staunton Affirmed.
Wilcox VS. Hunter, treasurer. Petit
ton for mandamus. Denied.
Williams VS. Newman. receiver. From
the Circuit Court OF Shenandoah. Re
verscd.
Spiiman. Adams & 60. VS.. Gilpin. From
the Circuit Court Of Page. Reversed.
Opinions by Judge Rely.
CITY of Winchester VS. Redmond. From
the Circuit Court of Frederick. Re
vcrscd.
Sfoneburnor vs.. Roller From the Cir
cult Court Of Shenandoah. Reversed.
Columbia Accident Company vs.. Rock
cv. From the Hastings Court OF Staun-
ton. Reversed.
Opinions by Judge Cardwell.
Hannah's admir-. rs. WOodson. From
the Circuit Court of Roanoke. Reversed.
Straycr rs. Longs admir- From the
Circuit Court of Shenandoah Affirmed.
Opinions by Judge Harrison:
Kaufman VS.. CharottesNiile Noolleh
Mills. From the Circuit Court Of Abe
marie Affirmed.
Deuineer SIS. Foutz From the Circuit
Court Of Shenandoah. Affirmed.
Opinions by Judge Buchanan:
WfInmSs admir-. VS. Carke's Rep.
From the Circuit Court OF Clarke. Re
verscd.
Wrcnn's admir-. &c. VS. Buena Vista
Improvement COMPANY From Law ana
Chanccry Court Of Norfolk, and Same VS..
Lynchhurg Trust and Savings company
Appeals and supersodas.
Hirlzhcad rs. Chcsape ke and ONO Rail-
wav Company. From Cuipepcr Circuit
....trl Nrfif Of error awarded.
Jackson SIS. Peasants. From Gooch-
land Circuit Court Appeal and superse-
IDEAS.
Citv o. Lynchburg vs. Wallace. From
r.,n-hhurg Corporation Court. Writ OF
error and superscdeas.
Wake and wife SIS. OConnor 81 ais.
From Manchester Hastings Court. APP
peal and superscdcas.
pace VS.. Pace 90 ads. From Corpora
,fon Court OF Dauyi,le. Appeal. etc.
Rockcchari VS.. ROckecharie. From
r-ncEburg Corporation Court Appeal
and suporscdeas.
Chairman VS. Commonwealth. FROM
the Richmond city Circuit Court APP
peal and supcrsedea-.
swim VS.. Commonwealth. From the
TazcwcTl Circuit Court. Appeal and SUI
pcrsodeas.
Prince Edward Circuit Court. Appeal
Gneeenhcimcr & co. VS. Rogers. &c.
From the Ioudoun Circuit Court. APP
peal allowed.
burroughs vs. Smith. treasurer. From
the Culpepcr Circuit Court. Appeal ale
lowed.
Supervisors Of Nottoway County VS..
Powell. treasurer. From NottOway Cir
cult Court. Appeal allowed.
Kimheli s. Fink. receivers. VS.. Law
rence's admir-. From the Huetines Court
of Radfori. Supcrscdeas and writ OF err
TOR.
Wythcvnio Crystal Ice Company VS..
Fricll 4. Company. FROM the Wytlo Gig
crit Court Appeal and suporscdels
STABLES rs. Brown. From tie Law and
Equity Court of Richmond. Appeal ana
supersedeas.
Gaines W. Merriman, ct ais. From the
Hcnr,co Circuit Court Appeal and SUI
pcrscdeas.
southsido IMMORAL Company VS.. Chase
# ais. From the Russell Circuit Court.
Appeal and supersoieis.
petition to rehcar ava order refusing pc
tition for writ of error in case OF VII
Uams VS.. The Commonwealth Is denied
Rowe VS. St. Clair From the Circuit
Court OF Gloucester Writ of error re-
fused.
Flanagan VS.. Bliss. From the Cir
emit Court Of Petersburg. Appeal re-
fused. ,-,,
Dav vs.. Swink From the Rockbrldge
Circuit Court. Appeal refused.
Ricgan VS.. Ri-gan. From the Neck
lenlrrg Circuit Court. Appeal refused.
Johnson rs. Craie From the Washing
ton Circuit Court. Appeal refused.
Putncy & Co. SIS. Kellum Ct ais. From