The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-11
RAILWAY INJUNCTlONS'
CASE SIMILAR 10 IHAf OF tI"''
STREET LINE DISPOSED or
Blythe Supreme Court Of Appca'S-''"'
shire W. Joncs--iitncs- oil '"''
other Gases.

thsrcly and not cWuiactu ih 'hc "i'e'.
nal suit except matters per ''',n' az ~
g.rmauo which have otgDti'" SINCE ''
V..'.f.I.on I'D may bee either TO obtain
"A discovery lu aid OF the dtIcnce 10
ANAL lUI. or TO obtain RELIEF Tor
an parties touCuins lne m"tl'l o. tn"'
bill ln lau. Inan. ffac, y. i"io, bar
IONS Chan. ig4rt.. ID. oVu. IL may DC
fl.l al4lu.t defendant where putr-
uon austs between Two defendants upon
"a case made ont iy evidence arising
from ul.adncs and proofs between the
plaintiff ana defendants. Ia. 200.
30 should not Introduce new ana as
uucf matter not embraced in inc oiif4-
ual Dbl. nor make new parties, a5 10
such matters. 3D. ls am original Din
Shields U.s.. GafraW. D., Howard, 49,
West Virginia LAND Company So. Nlha'
"a. W. Va, page, 81
2 30 may be- that thc ruic that inc
cr0ss-hli shall not Introduce new p"i
TICS may with prOpriDt.. Doe icl"N'n
when u is made 20 appear by cNiu'"'c
in tho picadiurs and proofs h'l"
plaintiffs and defendants That announcer
party is necessary in order tnat ihe "e-
TO the PLAINTIFF demand lnA4 "'
complete OF controversy uD lM',H "a
PENDANTS Dee properly adluolcale"' 'uDu7t'
difficult TO conceive oi case NiiD'i
would not Doc met by one OF tht COURSES
suae.stcd lv judge curtis in li Howard
Supra.
This case grew out Of The failure Of the
Domestic wing Machine COMPANY
J. n. Dcfhyshirc OF tnl7 fllF' WIZ no.
beccn the company MANAGER b.fo 80
certain accommodation not,-' GUY
which amounted 10 about >i.1V0. ana was
negotiated through >. VI. Jones' u
Giusburg. Pa , ..
Tho company gave Jones collateral SEE
curity for Ms endorsement
Hc refused t0 account % inc company
general receiver at Newark OFT 10
Dcrbyshire for The money realized ON
tho security. ana insisted on beiNA 7i'.
paying tlc note. Tho latter felu7'u 20
pay 10 and cnJoincd Jones rom .i ',,-'''s
suit of from sending the note oN'Fi". "i
the state. claiming that 10 the hot, U""
not been paid out of the assets OF tie
company placed iu Jones htnua TOT Ni"t
purpose. then Doe was cnilli'd 20 mo"
what had become of the property. OCT
It.Mtr. learning that the note nad htth
sent TO Richmond fer COLLECTION eueu
out au Injunction before Judge ingram,
o. The Hastings Court OIL Manohe7t,l,
c-toupiug Jones agent from either SUING
on the note or sending 30 out of the stale.
Thi. injunction was dissolved ny Ju"se
Lamb aud appealed by Dcrbyshire 10
the Supreme Court
The decision. which SIS in favor OF
Jones. was not ON the merits OF the
case. but on the form of procedure
FITNESS OF JURORS.
Richardson Vs. Planters Bank OF
Farmvue. Affirmed. opinion by Judge
Riley
part Of "a juror 90 one of the parties
10 a suit is not a. disqualification 10
hold. as a. legal presumption, tndt such
relationship would be likely 10 warp tne
Judgment would be TO estimate 100
chcapiy ones integrity under the sane
ton OF an oath.
D. Oral testimony as to the circum-
stances surrounding a transaction which
do not vary or contradict the writing.
hut shed ulut ON its meaning, are con
si-teut with lts meaning and make clear
what was otherwise obscure D. AWAY
admissible iu the coustiuc ton OF Wtlltth
Instruments where ambiguity cAl7ts.
kuck vs.. kuick, ID, Ma. ~.
STREET RAILWAY INJUNCTION.
Reid Iros. &C.. Ns. Norfolk city Rail-
road Company. Affirmed. Opinion py
Judge t1rdWelI.
The City Railway Company had been
operating. Tor many years before tni7
suit. slu.le and doubic-tfack horse rail-
WAYS ia Norfolk, ana, especially, Il
double track ou church street. soutn
OF Charlotte. It's charter was amcnueu
in l,oJ. and 30 was permitted by sald
amendment. 90 substitute cable, eict-
trlrity. or other mOilNc-lOMer. ana d"
construct "a single or dOuble-trach ran
road up Church street TO the ram
Grounds after obtaining the consent
of the city Council The city ordnance
GRANTED all necessary and appropriate
rights. and the company btsdu CON
structi0n of "a double track, 10 he ope-
rated by electricity. Appellants enJoineo
them from planting poles, %c.' lh iiout
of their property, and au along IhuIe DO
street north of Charlotte.
Injunction was dissolved ana nlH ole-
missed. as without equity and appeal
Ihe only question before This Court
b. whether am electric street railway D.
an additional burden or servitude on the
street Ior which tue auutung iot-oWners
ana entitled TO conversation. tNlllsei