The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-24
SUPREME COURT CASES.
4 DIGEST or THE OPINIONS HAND
Ed DOWN.
Qualifications OF "A Person to Conduct the
sale OF Liquor-TheN Nesting Of Property
in "a Married Woman.


From the Corporation Court OF Char
lottesville. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge
Rely
Preliminary question 40 to the right OF
this court TO transfer case from Staun-
ton TO Richmond. under section 3V03 OF
the Code, which was ruled afiirmativeiy.
~ Graft. $50.
license to sell liquor, taken by the court
OF its own motion under secuon JCD oil
the Code, and the notice was as iollows.
1T is ordered by the court that notice
be issued against Liiienheld TO snow
cause. &c.. why the bar-rOom ana fetali
liquor license under which he Is DO
ing business should not be revoked Ior
selling and causing TO be sold 10 minors
whisky, wine, ana beer.
Held: Notice - sufficient when the
charge or charges are stated In general
terms. II stated with sufficient certainty
10 enable him whose license 10 is sought
to revoke 10 understand the ground upon
which the revocation will be asked.
The proceeding Is a summary one. As
was said by Judge Lewis in * Va, 3ss,
'it was manitestly not the intention OF
the Legislature 10 require in such pro-
ceednes the application Of the strict and
al rules which apply 10 indictments
and other forms OF accusation I'm criminal
pro ecuuons." See also - Va, 9i4.
- IN a proceeding of this kind the
whole matter is heard and determined
by the Court. and IL Is not confined 70
the strict rules OF evidence which obtain
upon a jury trial; but the doors of evil
dcnce are and should be thrown open,
that the Court may be satisfied whether
or not X has entrusted the sale OF LIQUOR
TO an unit person, and the privilege
of the license has been abused or the
law violated. Its relevancy and mate
Iiality. and the weight TO be given IL.
are matters for the consideration of the
Court when II comes TO determine the
case. II Graft. SOB.
The protection Of minors against the
terrible evils which ensue from contract
ing the habit of indulgence In strong
drink, and the happiness OF parents, IA
well as the good Of society IN general
require that this dangerous traffic i'm ar
dent spirits should be carefully guarded
ana not placed nor suffered 20 remain IN
the hands OF men who Will disregard the
law or permit il 10 be disregarded. 10y
their employees, or knowingly retain IN
their service as bar-tendcrs persons who
violate the law.
PROPERTY OF A MARRIED WOMAN.
Miller US. Miller. From the Circuit
Court of Culpeper. Reversed. opinion
Land conveyed directly to married
woman, without the Intervention OF a
trustee. "iOr her only use and behoof,
construed ass clearly manifcsting an III
tent!on To exclude the rights OF the nus
band. and 10 create IN her an equtaDle
separate estate IN fee.
No particular form Of words is neces-
sery 20 vest property la married woman
separate estate. Whenever II appears
either from the language used or from
the nature OF the transaction, or from
the whole context OF the Instrument,
that it was intended tor the wife 10 have
the property 20 her sole ana separate
use. that intention VIII prevail; but IL
must Dee clear and unequivocal, Tor the
law VIII not lightly deprive the husband
al his legal rights. - Graft, 10, Burks
Separate Estate. T., l Minors lnsis.,
3l1. 1 Leading Cases IN Equity. r. :, p
~ Nor shall the trust iall Tor me
lack Of a trustee. Equity VIII carry the
Intention into effect. and treat the prop
city as her sole and separate estate by
declaring and holding the husband MINI
soif ass trustee for hor with respect TO
such property.
for The general engagements OF married
women and the manner or us enforce
mcnt. were settled I'm Price vs. Planters
Bank et ais. reported IN THIS column
iast week. where IL was held mat the
liability viii DE enforced, as Wen after
the termination az the Overture AZ dur
INK its existence, and that whefe me
-rnaratc estate consists OF realty, ohiH
the rents and profits thereon VIII DE
subjected 10 the payment OF the uep,s'
unless these viii never discharge me
debts or will not do so i'm a reasonable
time. in which case the land ITSELF may
"A sold. .,.. o., ,.oss-e,-
anime auy witness except as 10 iacts
and circumstances connected WIN the
matter stated i'm his direct examination.
N ne wishes 30 examine nlh as 10 o'u TT
matters. he must do 50 by making me
Witness his own and calling him az such
in the subsequent progress OF ihe 'duHe.
II Peters. AS, 46i, Grecnl. ENi' section
a., Such a cross eAainliia 'lvm, III 20 -
fe.f makes the witness witness OF
tho party cross-eXaminins MN, ana
amounts 10 a waiver of his competency.
ATTACHMENT ~ EQUITY. ,-
paub AGAINST Otterback. From the CIR
cult Court of Fairfax. Ahlriheu OPlhioh
by Judge Harrison. 1T. tn.
This was an attachment IN equity, WIN
"a Joint personal decree against IN" an
nfllpes one of whom was "A nOh-fesluehl,
entered i'm June, 1919. no decree ".s
taken for the sale OF the nonresident =
interest I'm the land sought 10 De AT,
ta,hed. nor was any execution issued
under the personal decree. IN August
1853. appellant had sci "a lssnei 70
-ovivo and TO have execution. Plea OF
huh tu record, and limitations by one
an1clee and OF limitations only by the
other Judgment in favor OF Defendants
affirmed by this court IN ~ Va biJ.
since final Judgment in that proceed
ing appellant filed his petition wnlch was
dismissed. and then MS nill OF review
m certain consolidated chancery proceed-
iues pending In Fairfax County Court
where funds were being administered, IN
which appellees were interested setunS
forth the personal Decree alleging us
the real estate attached which had been
ordered 10 be- sold In said pending chan
Gerry causes, and asking 10 nave me
debt allowed and paid out or any iOnds
coming 10 appeiices from said sale. De-
murrer 70 bill sustained and bill dis
Held. Questions raised arc res adiudi-
cata Tho final. general Judgment in the
sclre facias proceedings, upon the pleas
of nul tif record and the statute OF
limitations. ended all right in the appel
liant to enforce said decree against the
defendants either IN law or equity.
. The return Of the sherin-"eXecuted
upon the tract OF land within mentioned"
lis too vague and uncertain. The levy
must contain such general description OF
the land and with such substantial ac-
curacy as viii connect II with the sale
when made. so that purchasers may know
the land or interest therein TO be sold
and he able 20 form some estimate OF IFS
value. and. further. the levy should de-
scribe the land with such precision that
10 may be easily identified when conveyed
by looking alone 10 the levy without the
aid Of the extrinsic evidence. 50 Va, l2i.
> Hump, 39J. II Gill & Johnson, 81.
Where no valid attachment is levied
no lien is acquired on the real estate
- '''' 0e0'0 SUMMARY.
Judge John W. Rely; Miller vs.. Miller.
From the Circuit Court Of Culpeper.
Lilienheld vs. Commonwealth From
the Corporation Court Of Charlottesville.
Judgment affirmed.
Judge George NJ. Harrison Raub VS..
Ottcrback. From Ahe Circuit Court or
Fairfax county. Affirmed
West vs.. Adams From the Circuit
Court Of Gloucester county Writ OF error
and supersedeas Bond. 500.
Williams administrator vs.. Walton q
ais. Appeal and supersedeas 10 the Cir
crit Court Of Shenandoah county No
bond required.
" Webster vs.. Kemple Appeal and SUI
..-r------- 70 Aanrna ~ the Chancnrn,