Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-02-07
ONE WORD LEFT OUT.
WAS a PERJURY INDICTMENT
Eight Opinions Rendered !" '"e
court OF Appeals Ycsterd"s-'""
u.scryca 40 Liability for Person"
Injury.
Injury.

o.,.,,o,s an elem cases we're fenueieu
IN the Supreme Court of Appears SoS.e'
day All of the decisions were OF n''No'
,mcortance. as compared TO those 81
m, handed down in this tribunal w
doc,ded dealt with questions oil nc.
sponsibiiity OF corporation III ''e ..'s,,al
Of accidental injury to an ''i'' Sa,,,t
,,h,ch were fully discussed IN -,
,oc,s,on BY the court. ana an
., which was printed In the Disp"
.rSa cn,,rt handed down quite an %
,'.,,,,e oninion prepared by Judge he''s'
49, case Of Fitch against the I'm
...I,h from the Hastings Oo"i' '.
o,,, ~ stanton. Fitch was 'ieu
~, oonvicted of perjury in that 'riouN'I
- ,.,,,g been alleged that ne s"0'O
falsely In the case OF 'on' -, .r,,,a
,harsed with the betrayal oil M'sS -.
young. The material points in'oi'ea
:, tho controversy before the Ooui' ~
.oo,s we're as to the jurisdicuoD che
~ court and the manner in whn,..ended
,,a,c,nent was drawn. IL being IN the
-, ,n.re was fatal eiI .s that Fitch
istter m that it did not esi1npIy set forth
had sworn falsely D'' testimony IN the
,ho suhetance Of ~ court here reie1S
case referrff TO-, perjury, when Is as
10 the Stature ry person 70 whom an
folloys' ,fuIly adrnn, s,, y" az o.
oaSh s..,jruIV swear IaiseIy on So ~,
&sfon Wiling any material matter or
~casion III any person falsely make oath
tbins. ~ other person is Il years OF age
thaa TO obtain a marriage license,
IN shall be guilty of perjury The Court
Of Appeals held that under this statue
il would be necessary 10 charge that tue
defendant feloniously and wiifully swore
falsely. etc. The Indictment in the case
simply charged that the defendant uld
.feloniously, wilfully. and corruptly
swear and testify" The judgment or the
Hastings Court was reversed, but With
out prejudice TO the right 10 renew the
prosecution by the finding of another and
proper indictment.
OTHER OPINIONS RENDERED.
The other cases decided yesterday were
as follows:
BY Judge Keith. p: ~
Aylett, trustee. VS.. Walker. From/'
cult Court. Of King and Queen. N.Y. ~
Richmond Granite Company vs/ med
City of Petersburg VS.. TY1oAiilrrmIed.
the Hastings Court of ~ a. r' S9
nf Ry Judge caraweu. n
staude VS.. Keck, n
Court Of RichmonH From Chancery
nv Judge BuchZ Affirmed.
Walkers AdV IAN:
trustee. Frog thmistrator VS. Mason;
Lunenburg o/,d the Circuit Court OF
BY judy -Junty. Affirmed.
TuckerZas Harrison:
Westevr.y Administrator vs.. Norfolk ana
cult G.n Railroad Company From CIR
81 curt of Dinwiddie. Affirmed
tpknley. ct ais. VS.. Stanley's Admins
/Rtor ct ais. From Circuit Court OF
'iefianover. Affirmed.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Houehton & Sweet va. Mountain Lake
= Land Company Appeal and supersedeas
10 CORPORATION Court of Radford.
Bridgeforth VS.. Brdgeforth FROM
Circuit Court of Elizabeth City. Appeal
refused.
Runtin VS.. Swami & Holland. From
CORPORATION Court of Danyille. Writ OF
error refused.
Hawkins vs. commonwealth. FROM
Corporation Court of Lynchburg. Wri
Of error refused.
Russell VS. Almond. From Circuit
Court OF Gloucester. Petition for rehear
ing refused.
Anderson VS.. Hygeia Hotel Company
No. a. Argued by Judge W. II. Bur
roughs and T. r. BOrland for plaintiff
in error and Colonel Thomas Tabb 10
defendant I'm error and submitted.
Henley VS. jefferson. Three cases
Nos. %. S. and 100. Argued by George p
Haw Esq, for appellant.