The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-11

and determines The duties and obligations
OF the contracting parties. IL Is lh'i'-
fore. as much "A part OF every couNd'.
made since the statute was enacted ana
governed by the laws Of OHIO tand states
having Ike statutcs), as II Incorporated IN
70. the general rule being that laws IN
existence are necessarily referred 70 pm
ali contracts. and that no waiver OF int
parties nor stipulations IN the contta'l -
can change the law. 15l Penn. ST., Ia -
Nd l72. Al Ohio ST., 900. ln3 Mass, lN
o. The proceeding in this case Icing
by motion upon notice is presumed /"
De by the partics ana not by lawyers,
and rs viewed with great Indulgence by
the courts. Supervisors VS.. Dunn, - 'iasl.'
COS The defendant might have moved the
court for moro specific Information Nian
was contained I'm the notice. NOT haNlhs
made such motion. II was proper lh"t
the statutes were introduced IN evidence
though not set out in the plainilu plead
ing.
D. The usual and better. n not the only,
manner Of proving "a foreign statute IS
lv putting i'm evidence an authenticated
COPY Of 10 or so much OF II as is hc''s-
sary 10 show what the foreign law is
upon tho particular matters ln Cohlr1-
vcrsy. Hunter VS.. Fulchcr. RAND ~
i2i The question OF Interpretation ana
effect Of the statute when put IN eNl-
Ocnce g. for the court alone. Evans vs.,
Smith. ~ How. 400. Klcve vs.. Baker W
:. A portion Of the statute introduced
| provided that no answer TO any
iuterr0gatory made 10y applicant ior In
surarcc should Doe used DO cfldehoc' OK
| ccrt under certain circumsiances. Inc
admission and tho rules Of evidence are
matters Of procedure rather IMAM mat
! tiers touching the rights Cf the parties
under their contracts. and are goncrauy
| 90 Dee governed by the law OF the country
| where the court sits. That portion OF the
statute not affecting the validity, nature
| or Interpretation or the contract hut
| applying only. TO the remedy wiz not
he regarded i'm the enforcement OF INC
| contract in this State. but our mode Of
procedure viii Dee followed. FAINT vs..
| Miller II Graft. A.. torbin VS.. Planters
Nat. Bank. 81 Va, Col; story Cont. Cons,
| sec. Gao.
6. The admissibility CT an entry IN n
| family Bible does not depend uIOu the
| handwriting or authorship Of the entry,
hut upon the fact that II IS i'm the farn-
| ly Bible. II is of the nature Of q record,
and being produced from the proper Gus
! tody, Is itself evidence. the reason being
/ that though the Handwriting hc unknown
| or made by others than the family, yet
| the Bible being IN their possession. where
| all have access TO IT, the presumption is
| that tho entry would not be permitted
| 90 remain N the whole family did not
| adopt IL. and thereby give II authority.
| III Eng. Chy. Rep page 1923; ! Taylor On
! Ev., Sec go. ] Grecnl Evi
| T. The declaration Of the assured, in an
| application TO another company. as 10
| his age. was not admissible I'm evidence
| against the beneficiary (anothor person.
| in the policy sued on TO prove the facts
| stated in 10. valley Nut. Ass. VS.. Tee
vault 70 Va. AZ; c. \. y. lsG. II being
| important. however. for the defendant 10
| show that the insured had knowledge or
| bis age In order 10 show that his answer
| as TO IL i'm the latter application was
| false and fraudulent. and competent evil
/ dcnce having been offered tending 10
| show his age. his declarations I'm the
| former application were competent to
/ d u
| ~ was error not to allow the former aD-
| plication for insurance 10 20 TO the jury.
! y. other exceptions were taken for cX-
| Guiding evidence Of declaration of the
| insured as 20 his health and habits "Tne
declarations of the insured were not
! competent evidence 10 prove che exist
! ence OF FACTS showing false statements
! ease denied in his application. But where
/ such Facts are otherwise proved. or there
/ is evidence 10 prove them. the reclara-
/ tions of the insured are competent for
/ the purpose of showing that the insured
/ had knowledge thereof"
/ g i'm order TO show that the trial court
! has erred in rejecting or excluding evil
! ocnCe, the bills of exceptions must show
! the materiahty OF the evidence rendered.
! what the party expected or proposed to
NOW IL tns witness is not permitted 10
answer what the answer was If made
and excluded. Many citations from I0tn.
EN- and 10Th Graft; 20 Va, 42l: 30 Va,
EQUITY JURISDICTION.
! collins, DC. VS.. Sutton. Reversed.
/ Opinion by judge Harrison
The chief object is tho settlement Of
| boundary line.
! Held: Courts Of equity will not inter
! tcre TO ascertain boundaries unless there
is a'tttstcd some peculiar equity which
has arisen from the conduct. situation.
| ,4 auvI ol llc parties . Pom. Eg.
! Jur. Sec, 1854; Stuarts heirs U.S.. Coalfor.
| Rand, -, Iange VS. Jones. % Ieigh 2lf
| . Where the attempt is TO enforce "a
I % I.f .nH u
/ the need OF discovery is the alleged
! ground Of equity. the bin is demurrahle
! II there Dee no avermen. that The discovery
/ la material or ntccs airy. 'hildrcss Us.
Morris % Graft. sO2. March vs. Dav-
! son. Paiges Chan. r.. $50
! g. Where a party comes into equity al
| leging a good legal title and asking am
| injunction TO restrain a trcspass. he
/ must charge that irreparable damage viii
! result II the injunction is denied. setting
| forth the facts constituting such injury.
| or that the defendant is lusON,nt Jn-
rs the bill contain one of these allie
/ hations, IL Is fatally detective. Western
| NJ. co. vs.. Va. Coal Co.. 10 w. Va. 2iU.
| Hamilton W. Ely. Gill %. High ON
! 1niunctiOns. Secs Cg1-gg. Crcsap vs. KIM
SUMMARY.
! Judge James Keith prcsidenO:
Dcrbyshire vs.. Jones. Chanccry Court
| city OF Richmond. Affirmed.
Judge John W. Ricly.
| Richardson vs.. Planters Bank Of Farm
Vile. Circuit Court of Prince Edward
county. Affirmed.
Judge r. IT. Cardwcil:
Reid Bros &c VS. Norfolk city r. r.
Co, &c Circuit Court city Of Norfolk.
| Affirmed
| judge John A. Buchanan:
] Union Central Life ms. Co. VS.. Pollard
| Circuit Court city OF Richmond. Re
! Ncrscd.
| judge George NJ. Harrison:
| Collins and ais. vs.. sutton. Circuit
| Court Of Caroline. Reversed
| Manly Mufg co VS.. HroacduS. &c. An-
| peal and supcrscdeas Circuit Court Page
! county
Garner VS. Commonwealth. Writ OF
| error 10 judgment County Court Of Prince
! Mumnowor vs. City Of bristol. Writ
] OF error Circuit Court Washington county.
| TNrne's admir- ". - I.elrV and ais. AD-
| peal to the Hastings Court city of koa-
nokc.
| cult Court Of Amherst county. Appeal
| and supcrsedeas.
| Killer VS. Commonwealth. Circuit
! Court Of Page county Writ Of error
! and euperscdeas not 10 operate 10 dis
| charge the prisoner from CUSTODY.
Southwest Virginia ms. Co. VS.. Wood.
| Circuit Court of Washington county.
NNNiaesie vs.. Powers. Little & Co Cir
cuit Court Of Wise county. Appeal re-
CASES TO BE DECIDED.
Sims VS. Tvrer. &c. Argued by Judge
| Critcher for appellant and J. r.. Cation.
| $50. for appellees and continued tin to-
/ INC next cases 70 he called are.
Mccartney vs.. Tyrer. &c. No. 3.
! Piedmont Bank VS. Hatcher No 90
W. w. sC0Tr-