The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-08-05
VA. SUPREME COURT
DEFINES UH1TPiRTO or ELECTION
RhCORDs IRI PUBLIC PROPEK1I,
The Hastings Court OF Roanoke Reversed
on an Important Mechanics Lien
Case-Othcr Cases.


ton for a mancamus commanding Terry
TO allow petitioners TO examine the rec
oris II tho Electoral Board Of Wythe
County and e take memoranda thereof
The petition does OF aver that Terry re-
fused - allow an inspection Of the rec
ord. por does II state what memoranda
or notes from the records petitioners de-
sired 20 make. or the length OF time that
would have been required 10 make. the
memoranda or notes. but the complaint
i5 merely that Terry refused 10 allow
copies or memoranda 10 be made OF the
records.
After q fun review Of the statute re-
lating 20 the duties Of the Electoral Board,
new the records Of the Boards proceed
ings are 10 be kept. what acts OF the
BOARD are 10 De performed In secrecy,
and showing what portions OF the records
arc open 20 Inspection and what portions
cannot be disclosed without defeating the
whole object of the law relative TO t1o
official ballot. viz. TO provide for the
voter LEGAL ballot. verified IN such man
mo- as 10 prcclt de its being coInterfeited.
and 10 Illustrate, as far as possible. the
use Of unofficial ard Illegal ballots; and
further showing that the statute does not
require the secretary OF the Board 10
make copy of the records or provide Tor
his conn rsation for so doing. as Is the
case with ether public records. nor i'm
pose upon him the duty OF allowing copies
thereof TO DE made. which would neces-
sarily TO have to be- made In his presence,
the opinion concludes as follows.
The court is Of opinion. first. that 50
mn On Of the record OF the proceedings OF
the Electoral Board OF Wythe county
contained h. the hcCk provided by law and
committed 20 the a. stody " the respond
Cut as secretary OF the Board. as relates
10 the al pOirtn ent AMI removal of judges
and commissioners Of election and regis
tiars or the ordering u "a new registra-
ton. is public record open TO Inspection
by any citizen and voter Of Wyfhe county
and that he may take therefrom memo
rauda or notes Of the proceedings Of the
Electoral Board as 10 which secrecy Is
not cniOircc d." law. which memoranda
or notes may Poe made at and within
reasonable time IN the presence OF the
secretary. but until IL is shown that the
right 10 inspect these records or 20 make
memOrada or noise. proper 20 be made as
aforesaid mas been denied a mandamus
should not issue requiring respondent 20
allow such memoranda or notes TO be
made.
Second That so much Of the record Of
the proceedings Of the Electoral BOari
of Wythe county I'm the custody OF its sec
rotary as relates 10 the preparation and
printing the official ballot ~ required
hy law. certlhcation Of the same and their
distribution 10 the judges Of election OF
the scvcSll precincts in the county OF
Wythc. Is not public record that Is
open % inspection by any one other man
the officers of the county 10 whom the
duties Of preparing. printing certifying
and distributing the ballot j. delegated 10y
law. ami that the respondent cannot De
compelled 20 allow petitioners 20 make
memorardas of these proceedings or 10
inspect them.
Third. That the petition Of the appii-
cants here Gleaves and others, does not
make case upon which the mandamus
prayed for should issue, and II must there
fore Dee denied.
Fidelity Loan and Trust Company vs..
Donnie ~ ais Opinion 10y Judge hiely
Husur rs Court city Of Roanoke. ke'eTs-
Cd.
This was a controversy between the
owner of "A prior REMEMBRANCE by Ntth
Of trust on real estate and certain per
sons holding mechanics lien for eitcloh
of buildings thereon, ana materials tel
nishcd for the same as % the proper ~
trihution Of the proceeds or safe OF tn'
property. and involved the construction
If section 2iS3 of the Code. The pro
ccsds Of sale being insufficient 10 pay
in fun tho two classes or liens. th" Cou.
below decided that the proceri7 OF Sdl'
prior ircumh'nts and the MOI IeiS on tlS
mechanics liCn. according 10 the estimated
value Of the land, exclusive OF llc "'i,-
incs. Held. That the mcumhrahct ,s
decd of trust having been created on the
hand before the work upon the bulldlil1s
was commenced or the materials iheittol
furnished. the ow1r thereof was ehtur
10 be- paid in full out OF the pro-, oi
sale. the estimated value OF me lanu' cN
elusive of the buildings az the tlme OF
.,f. and thaf his lien 10 that extent was
IA d.. ureferroi I'M the distribution OF 'he
asserts and that the holders OF the m
chanic's Hcr were only entitled TO the
proceeds of sale. l,-,... b,- r,doe
Hudson vs.. Waugh. opinion ny ,u"5
Keith Hastings Court ior Tue cry ''
Roanoke Reversed.
j y. Waugh purchased four parcels 0i
land in the city of Roanoke from =,
hudson. for which be agreed 20 ~! 81.
I'm cash. executed his notes LOT s-''oi'
payable in one ana lW",o- a., Cror, his
.lmed the payment Of So" Gue, ~ oi'i i.'I
,...~lor 10 fhc old Dominion bul.elNI "'-S
Loan Association, secured ny u''u -
fi.u-r making the entire puIchAsD ~
SCI 500. Soon thereafter ne u4s,o ny -, ''--
rCtrg thus having the Whole OF t"S Pu
N'',7 ,,,ro,. exrcpt the lien held 10y the
,.tt1i-'- ae-ociation This loan was 10
h. ronald boz monthly lhsldilll.N'a 80
o,eh II was expected 20 ma'uie a. "4ei
- months but hv the terms OF tn' 49,
i.,t, continue for period not eNceeoilB
a. -~rthe Al the time or tlc ad-o ,...
.o,-srs and lots were rchu.E ivl VI. T1'c,iitE
month. tie rents declined TO ga iei "a" ,er
49, Nu per month, and imam! w ~
", ,o,,. wear after the purchase OF tne
X-su,rh discovered mat tlr t
from the building asSo''A,titI'' u,onIj he
i.l beeu represented 10 "ii, 20. ftrided
satisfied by the pay nchl ~, - 81 each.
,mto about - insialmenls III ,oonfhs
H ''pf continue for as mnch a9 - ba,,e
.1 t t,,..,.,.1 sing the amount H' """'
o., nav 10 the assoclA'i .,o,-,. ha con-
,f.cr making this dlS'ot t,ggstaincnts
4Nig4 49,, a number or liS''.i -
tinued 10 20 .i,,,e when this suit was
uoN..,,c1 II appears aIsp no no, no
insllu'cu, tho amount OF the loan uue
I-Sp' .,,5,,o association, ne uiu "o'
1 ,vroflv upon the Itlt'' 80 no
o.-re and his agents ""' ,bs
.o,~ht and obtained adN'l -
s,,biecr and did not closV, he vordor's
go, n,tu the statement OIL ~ ~
l". IA thus been corropoi a''.- ~,
agents N9 bie hill. I'm which ne charges
tne" M bed been induced 20 pui'u"Sc
~. io,s bv the false represent t ,' a.
to me amount On, Ihe oosssoSistion.
ia NJ ,.endor J. T. Hudson. answered, ne-
ms 49, fraul. and proofs were taken
~ ~ .,, the pleadings and proofs lne
,oots as above stated appear M, ~
secn that the exact arioNhl Vi W. -.
dra tho Building Association - qop, l,oot
,,,.cr The date Of maturity OF us siveh.
~ sbo,id mature in about nfty-nNe
80 then Waugh would D. required
g. -s,. only the sum of So" should the
stock mature In less IMAM II, Nv,
,,onths the loan would De uischatssu
a., ~ ,,a,-,nent OF "A less sum- should the
~. ~ 49,, "a Greater length % time. not
,,c.edine- eichry-four months. Waugh
,-o,i1 lac required 20 pay prOportlonate-
L.. e-~eoter sum than g. 1e6. The evidence
&c not show when the stock Will proDa-
blv mature. la. - WI,
Held: That II was the duty OF waugh.
as soon as he discovered That the loan
vas greater than he had supposed II 10 be
.4 ~ time Of the purchase. and that he