Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-04-09
COURT OF APPEALS.

-Four had to do with the celebrated
Cheek will case of Danville.
One was Richmond case, an appeal
from the Law and Equity Court in the
case of Goddin vs.. the Western Union
Telegraph Co., by the defendant.
Goddin brought suit in the lower
court to recover 500, the penalty pre-
scribed by section 1892 of the code Tor
failure to promptly deliver message.
The company demurred to the declara-
ton upon the ground that section l292
was a contrayention Of article l, sec
ton s, of the constitution of the United
States and therefore was void. The
demurrer was overruled. The defend
ant brought up the same question in
the instructions, which the Judge re-
fused to give. A verdict was given for
Goddin to recover On behalf of the
defendant in error it was contended that
the Court of Appeals was without juris-
diction, the amount being less than
$500. The plaintiff in error maintained
that the higher court had jurisdiction
upon the ground that constitutional
question was involved. The writ of error
was dismissed.
The opinion of Judge Lewis in the
case of the same company VS.. Tyler de-
Gliding that section 1892 of the code was
not in conflict with the United States
constitution or any pursuant act OF
| Congress, and the case of the same COM
pany VS. Powell, Judge Buchanan hav-
ing written the opinion, settling the
question of Jurisdiction were cited.
cat the time the writ of error in the
case before us was awarded the constl'
nationality of section 1892 had been
passed upon in this court and it was no
longer debatable question" says the
opinion. Applying this test, it is
plain that the constitutionality OF sec
ton 1902 is not an open one in this
court. 1t is no longer debatable, and
in point of fact it was not touched upon
in the argument at all except to admit
that it was an unfounded contention
and had been so decided by the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
"We are Of the opinion that the writ
of error heretofore awarded should be
dismissed"
Judge Keith wrote the opinion.
In the case of Darden and others vs..
Ferguson and others, an appeal from
the Circuit Court, the question was of a
man being insolvent making over GER
tain property to his wife to secure notes
alleged to be held by her. Darling con-
veyed four pieces of property to his
wife to secure $500 of notes. The
Circuit Court decided that the deeds
were invalid.
The opinion written by Judge Harrison
says that owing to the facility which the
! marriage relation affords for the com
mission of fraud, transactions between
husband and wife should be closely
scrutinized to determine if they are fair
and honest; that in contest between
the creditors of husband and the wife
the burden of proof is upon her to show
clear and satisfactory proof of a bona
Gde transaction in all such cases, the
presumption being in favor Of the credi
tors; that she must prove the original
transaction, the mere holding of bond
being unsatisfactory.
Judge Cardwell wrote the opinion in
the Danyille will case. There were
three litigations and they came from
the Corporation Court of Danville.
They were Wildberger ct ais, Brown
ing ct ais, and Casey ct. ais, VS..
Cheeks executors. In all three cases
the decision of the lower court is at
firmed.
Mr.. Cheek, who was bachelor, left
$500, 900 to his relatives. One of these
was sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Houston,
who had died in Tennessee before the
death of the testator and before the
execution of the will. Deceased left a
: daughter and granddaughter. The
question was whether the legacy OF
$25, 900 to Mrs. Houston lapsed or be-
comes void because of her death before
the date of the will, or does the legacy
pass to the issue of the legatee? The
precise question has never before been
passed upon by the Supreme Court of
the State. The court decided that
rights of the legatee at her death vest
ed in her issue. There were various
other phases of the will involved which
we're passed upon. The decision Of
the lower court was affirmed in every
particular.
} Taylor ct al. vs.. Mahoney. Chancery
Court, city of Norfolk. Reversed.
Taylor ct al. vs. Mallory. Circuit
Court of Orange county. Writ of error
and supersdeas awarded.
Jackson vs. Commonwealth. Circuit
Court of Allegheny county. Writ OF
error refused.
The Norfolk and Carolina Railroad
Company VS.. Suffolk Lumber Compa-
NY. Law and Equity Court, city OF
Norfolk. Writ OF error refused
National Valley Bank vs.. Clayton ct
al. Circuit Court of Bedford county.
Appeal refused.
KEENAN, VS.. Commonwealth. County
Court of Clarke county. Writ of error
refused.
REYNOLDS VS.. Commonwealth, County
Court of Pittsylvania. The accused
was indicted and prosecuted for a fell
onv of which the court had original
Jurisdiction, and although the jury by
their verdict found the accused not
guilty of the felony, but guilty of an
assault and battery, competent part
of the offense charged, yet the court
having properly acquired cognizance Of
the offense charged, we are of opinion
that it was not ousted of its jurisdiction
to render judgment on the verdict,
finding him guilty of the misdemeanor
for which he was included within the
felony for which he was indicted and
tried. The writ of error is denied.
Rosenbaum's executor vs. Seldom.
argued and continued.