The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-12-04
diction. TX partc Ellyson. % Graft. 10.
4 RAILROAD CASE.

lN Judge Cal dwell.
Few WIS Killed by freight train while
attempting 10 drive a COW over street
crossing Ina Woodstock
Held: The case e. controlled absolutely
by Johnsons administrator vs.. Chesa-
pcakc and Ohio Railway Company u
Va. ~. unless differentiated boy the PROOF
as 10 the condition Of the crossing ana
unless 10 bc shown that the proNTate
and immediate cause OF the ACCIDENT was
the defective condition thereof.
Tho evidence Is summarized as lo'-
lows.
The dav on which the accident occur
red was clear. View OF the track Is
certainly at n distance OF hiteeh i.e1
from the crossing. was unoDsirucieu lot
at least a thousand feet. the whiatiing or
the engine ringing Of the bell ana inc
noise OF the approaching train had AZ
tractod the attention OF number OF
persons all further from the track IMAM
Few. who. though siNiy-eight years oi
arc. retained an his faculties or sight,
boarinr etc That he saw the approach
ing train. admits Of no doubt piainlll
own witness saying ~ was In fun view.
Tho fireman. the only person on the Tram
who could see him, saw him when WIN
in fifteen feet OF the track. ana had
every reason 20 think he would stop ana
not attempt 20 cross IL In front or the APP
preaching train. lie paused. but ala
not stop. and failing 20 heed all warn
iugs. stepped on the track and was
struck by the engine. All Of which oc-
CURED I'm moment. The engineer. he
Ing at his post on the right. while Few
approached on the loft. could not see
him until he was struck and thrown from
the track.
cit may. therefore. be said that upon
the face of tho evidence. under the strict
rule applicable to its consldfation' IL
conclusivoly appears that the deceased,
by his own negligence and recklossncss,
directly and proXimatcly contributed TO
the act which caused his death u was
error 10 override the motion 10 SGT aside
the verdict and grant new trial.
SELLING LIQUORS Of SUNDAY.
a1oreanstern VS.. Commonwealth. AZ
/ nrmcd. opinion by Judge Rely.
This was q prosecution for opening
bar aud selling liquors. on Sunday.
Held: The objection OF duplicity-charg-
ing two senaratc offences I'm a single
COURTS not tenablo The court follows
the statute and charges that the OPEN
ing Of the bar. and selling the liquors.
were done AZ the same time and place.
Each is an offence during the prohibited
time. and n separately done on different
occasions. they constitute separate and
distinct offences: hut when done as
charged I'm the Indictment. AZ the same
| time and place. they constitute together
only one offence. and there can be but
/ one punishment.
| O. Where vice or wrong hash been
constitutehd criminal offence by statute
/ and such statute I'm defining the Of
/ foncch has specified a series
| of acts, oithehr OF which sup
arately or nj together as here. the same
| penalty for the commission Of one or all
| Of them. II is we'll settled that the com
mission Of any two or more Of them may
/ be alleged I'm the same court # coniunc-
/ lively charged. II all are committed by
| the same person. AZ the same time. they
are 10 be considered rs parts Of the same
! transaction. collectively constituted a
/ single offence. Many authorities cited.
@ Where tho several acts are coniunc-
| tivclv charged I'm the same court the
! proof Of any one Of them is sufficient to
| authorize a conviction.
| Where ono or moro Of the acts are
committed M n certain time. and other or
the same acts at different time. they
/ may he charged I'm different courts and
| n proved there may be "a conviction OF
/ tho several offences so committed on
/ different occasions and punishment for
/ each offence.
2. The proviso OF the statute that at
| shall not apply TO any city having police
| regulations and an ordinance innicting
/ % penalty equal 10 the penalty Of the
| statute means that such regulations or
ordinance should define the same Of
fence. and prescribe the same penalty
! substantially. as the statute. Thorns
! case. 81 Graft $50
/ The city ordinance was less compre-
/ hensivc than the statute when that case
was decided. and now the difference is
! even greater than then.
4. The act Of Assembly acts 1S17-1S
/ p. '0D is construed TO mean that during
/ such time not only there shall be no
! sale of Intoxicating liquors but that thN
/ place I'm which they are sold during the
rest Of the week shall be closed 10 view
! and 10 AN access except perhaps 10 the
/ casual entrance Of the owner or his em-
/ plovcs for some Innocent and necessary
/ purpose, so as 20 remove any femnta-
/ ton 10 buy or sell. and am ground Of
| offence 20 the moral and orderly eonti-
| mont which condemns any traffic i'm
I liquor on Sunday The mere enclosure
/ Of tho bar counter while free access is
! permitted 60 the room is that compli-
| ance either with the letter or the spirit
/ Of tho statute.
g. Traffic I'm liquor IS not an absolute
/ richt. but I'm business which the state
| may regulate and control under IT'S police
| i''M fis NNN INC statute UeeN NOT interfere
with the legitimate business Of n res
taurant or Of furnishing meals to board
ers ON Sunday. but such business may
not he carried on I'm plain violation Of
! the provisions Of the statute "thc bar
room. saloon. or other place for the sale
or intoxicating liquors shall not be open-
od' during the inhibited hours.
LOST MISREPRESENTATION OF PAY
MENT.
McN cighs Administrator VS.. Chamber
lain. Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Rely
Luther q. died i'm 1S2S owning a two
/ thirds interest i'm wharf property. Under
/ his viii. his son, the appellee. was en-
! titled 10 the property If he survived his
mother TO whom testator gave an his
! property during her natural life. and
| absolutely. it, mono of his children sur
vivod her. She married McN, who had
! become owner OF the other third OF the
wharf and who bought appolce's con-
! tinccnt interest therein for 5000, giving
his obligation therefor payable a. the
death of his mother in case he survived
her
Nov. died I'm 1850. his wife I'm 1900 the
appellee surviving her and thus the OBJ
| legation became fixed liability.
McV.'s executor brought suit 10 ad-
minister the estate under direction or the
Court Appellee. after asking executor
for payment Of the obligation filed his
petition. verified by his oath. and claim
| ga payment of said debt. setting forth
the facts as herein stated. and alleging
/ loss Of the bond and diioent search