Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-07-29
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Digest of Opinions Handed Down
Last Thursday.

Following are digcsts of opinions OF the
court delivered last Thursday. The
opinions were delayed in the mails and
hence appear late:
The court adjourned 20 meet In Staun-
ton. September 5th.
ENCLOSED LANDS" EXCEPTIONS.
Kimban & Fink. receivers Norfolk ana
Western Railway Company vs. carter.
Affirmed. Opinion by Keith. +.
This was an action for damages Tor cat
tile killed by the train. the company
having failed 10 fence its track through
enclosed lands"
Held: l. As to exceptions to certain
questions. no one of which was at the
place indicated in the record, and the
answer 90 no one OF them given; tho eX-
ceptions will not be considered Ffrst'
because not taken in proper form. The
court repeats that it viii not Dc subject
ed to the unnecessary labor and the
danger of mistake of being required TO
search through record to ascertain
facts which ought TO be embodiol lin the
exception itself. Shaft VS.. Norfolk and
Western Railroad Company. 90 Va. "a;
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
VS.. Ampey, SO Va. los
Secondly. The exception here would in
no event be considered, because while
the question is objected to, the answer
IS not given so as TO enable the court
10 pass upon its relevancy and value.
Gray's Case, % Va, ~; Union Central
Life Insurance Company VS.. Pollard 26
S. +. r., 42l; Chlldresss Administrator
rs. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Com
pany, Ibid, Al.
2 Enclosed lands are lands surrounded
by q fence. and fence is a visible OF
tangible obstruction. which may be q
hedge ditch. wal. or a frame of wood,
or any line of obstacle interposed be-
tween two portions of land, so as to part
off and shut in the land and set il off as
private property. Porter vs.. Aldrich. 3.
VT. 1926; Bggerstaff vs.. ST. l., X. c. and
n Railway Company, GO Mo-, 5G7; Taylor
VS. Welbey, &c Wis. AZ.
8. Where statute requires railroad
companies TO fence their tracks along
.enclosed or cultivated fields" 1t is not
necessary that. In order TO be entitled 10
this protection, the enclosure of the fields
should be by lawful fences. 60 Mo Supra
IIarman VS.. Storms. Upon petition tC
rehear. Rehearing denied. opinion by
Keith, Il.
This case was summarized in the last
report
APPEAL FROM JUSTICES COURT.
Combs VS.. commonwealth. Affirmed.
Opinion by Keith, Y.
Combs was convicted on June LIST by a
magistrate of selling whiskey without
a license. and was sentenced 10 sixty
days in Jail and fine of $780, lie was
committed TO Jail, and on June nth APP
piled for and got an appeal from the
same Justice. The County Court held
that the appeal. not having been taken
at the time Of the trial. nor until at
least nine days thereafter he must be
recommitted TO Jail; and writ Of error
The question is whether, under sec
ton 41O7. an appeal may be allowed by
justice to a judgment rendered by him
under section 4lO6.
Held The duty imposed on the JUS
fiee by section 4107 is mandatory. The
prisoner has free and untrammelled
right of appeal. and unless let TO bal
shall be committed to jail, and the wit
nesses recognized 10 appear at the next
term of the court TO which the appeal
lies. This duty Of recognizing the wit
nesses would be incapable of perform
ance, except at the time OF the rendition
of the judgment appealed from.
LEGAL SURVEY, ETC.
s. w. Virginia Mineral Company VS.
Chase. Amended and affirmed. Opin'
ion by Buchanan, j.
Chase authorized I'm writing an agent