Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-15

and as such superintendent shall receive
compensation of $500 per annum." The
court. In refusing the writ of manda-
mus. points 90 the eighth division OF sec
ton 1888. OF the Code. which says: The
Register OF the Land Office. who shall
also be the Superintendent OF Public
Buildings and also OF Weights and Mea-
sues. shall annually receive the
sum OF 1850, which shall be compensa-
ton for ali his services" The court,
in the opinion prepared by Judge Rely.
says the two sections with respect TO
the salary present n case OF apparent
II not real. reDugnancy. and that the
allowance Of the additional $500 TO the
Register Of the Land Office for the dis
charge OF the duties of Superintendent OF
Weights and Measures would be In direct
violation OF the eighth division OF section
iSS. The opinion went on TO say that the
only reconcilable view which could be
taken OF these laws was that the 800 for
the services of Superintendent OF Weights
and Measures should come from the
compensation Of $500 allowed the Regis
ter OF the Land Office the superintendent
OF Public Buildings. and the Superintend-
ent Of Weights and Measures.
During Major Gaines's lifetime he only
claimed the 81 800 per annum.
Gets Out of the Pcnitcntiary.
The case Of Garner against the Com
monwealth was also decided yesterday,
and white man, named Garner, Is to
be released from the penitentiary by
reason OF this fact. Garner was sent
TO the pcnitentiary for three years, upon
being convicted of burning mill
house belonging TO O. s. Davis. The
mi
the night Of the fire. that tracks lead
ing TO and from IL were made by him,
and that he and the owner of the pro-
perty were not on good terms. but he
denied that he was the incendary. lie
was convicted. however, and his motion
for n new trial on the ground that the
verdict was contrary TO the evidence
was overruled. An appeal was taken,
and in reversing the lower court, Judge
Keith who prepared the opinion OF the
Court of Appeals. says:
THE utmost that can be said of the
proof is that It shows the burning OF
the mill as the act Of an incendiary,
that the prisoner had the opportunity
TO commit the crime, and that he
cherished nl-feeling towards the owner
OF the property destroyed. These cir
cumstances were sufficient to cause the
prisoner
and rendered an investigation Of it pro-
per TO ascertain whether or not he had
any connection with it, but in our 1udg-
ment falls short of that degree OF
proof which warrants a conviction, or
which will sustain a verdict under our
statute. which requires us to consider
the motion for a new trial. as upon a
demurrer to the evidence by the pris-
Onec."
Some of the Minor Cases.
An interesting case, was that Of the
Piedmont Bank. &c. against Hatcher
and others the opinion i'm which was
prepared by Judge Buchanan. The OBJ
iect of this suit was to set aside a con-
veyance of certain lands. upon the
ground that It was made TO hinder, de-
lay. and defraud the creditors OF Inc
eranter. and to subject the lands to
tho navment Of certain negotiable notes
held bv the appellants The answer OF
one of the makers of the notes denied
that the payee endorsed them TO the
complainant as alleged in the bill. II
was alleged that the notes were pro-
cured by fraud. brought about by some
transactions over patent churi
power." The Supreme Court, after dis
cussing all the questions involved, al
firms the decree Of the lower court.
Judge Harrison prepared and read the
opinion Of the court in the case OF WIN
| Ter against the Southern Loan and In
vestment Company. The case was one
of alleged breach Of contract. The com
pany, it appears, employed winter az
| general manager. at salary or SlUV PEI
month, but he was TO receive $1,000 Z,
per month. I'm the event that Donds oi
! The Uoward's-Grove Development Com
! -, ,,.o,o cold I'm excess Of $1,000. The
/ companv did not deem it to its interest
| TO furnish the bonds for sale. the
! Cont holds that there was no failure
ON the part of the defendant company
TO comply with its contract and aifirms
the Judgment of the lower court.
o.1,cr suureme Court Matters.
Moore Lime Company VS.. Richardson
Administrator. Writ of error ana super
sedeas. Circuit Court, Botetourt county
Bond, $3.50. -
Mechanism, etc. VS.. Hockihah' elo
Circuit Court Of Shenandoah county Ap
peal and supersedeas. Bond WV
Rangelev's Administrator VS.. Southern
Railway Company. Corporation Court OF
Danville. Writ Of error and supersedeas
No bond.
Fichburg VS.. Laupheimer. Corporation
| Court. city of Alexandria. Writ of error
refused. -.
Webb VS.. Commonwealth. Writ of error
refused to Circuit Court of Carroll county
Tanners Executor VS.. Rosser. Motion
10 reinstate. Cause submitted.
Sherwood and others VS.. Atlanta and
Iohn w. Harper. Esq. for petitioner
Danville Railroad Company. Argued by
and Alfred 2. Thorn, Esq, for defend
ants.