Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-20

main IN full force. Failing TO appear
his default was noted upon the record. a
scire facias issued. and his sureties sum-
noncd 10 appear at the next term and
show cause why execution should not
Issue against them. They appeared,
craved oyer of the recognizance. and de-
INJURED. and the court sustained the
demurrer. and gave judgment for tho
defendants An appeal was taken TO the
Circuit Court. Wise county. AMI after
wards removed 20 The Circuit Court oe
Russell county. where the Judgment OF
the County Court was affirmed, and to
this Judgment a writ OF error was award
td by this court
Held: Section 1898 prescribes that a re-
eognizance shall be upon condition that
the prisoner shall appear at the time in
dicatcd 10 answer The offence with which
he is charged" Section 400 provides that
mo action or judgment on recog.
nizance shall be defeated or arrested
by reason OF any defect in the form or
recognizance. II IL appear 10 have been
taken by a court or officer authorized TO
take Il. and be substantially sufficient"
The recognizance In this case was taken
by the proper authority, but wholly omits
The condition prescribed by the statute.
aAd the court cannot say IN the total
absence Of the condition which the
statute prescribes that it Is "substanti-
ally sufficient"
POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORA
TiONS.
Richmond and West Point Land. Navi-
cation. and Improvement Company VS..
Town Of West Point. Circuit Court OF
King William county. Opinion by Judge
Keith. u. Affirmed.
The Richmond ard West Point Land.
Navigation and Improvement Company
sold TO the town OF West Point a number
Of lots situated within the limits of the
town for the sum OF si.17j. taking there
for four notes. falling due on the lst OF
August OF each year, beginning with
the LIST of August. 1883. The notes were
not paid. and suit was brought In the
Circuit Court OF King William county TO
recover. The defendant pleaded nil debit.
There was a judgment for the defendant.
to which a writ Of error was awarded
by this court.
Held: Municipal corporations have the
power to contract and be contracted with
and TO purchase and hold real estate,
and where the charter Is silent, the limit
of the capacity 10 purchase is that the
land so purchased must be necessary TO
the proper exercise of the powers con-
ferred upon ii, or essential TO the pur-
poses for which II is created. Inc pur-
chase may be upon credit, Tor WINE
municipal corporation may not borrow
money and issue its obligation therefor
without authority OF the Legislature IL
NAV purchase property necessary for the
discharge Of the duties and functions re-
posed in IT, and, as consequence OF
that mower 70 purchase. may bind Itself
for the payment OF tho purchase-money
and execute all proper evidence OF DEBT
. Tho plea Of nil debit put the whole
of the plaintiffs case in issue ana the
burden was upon the plaintiff 10 sho" tne
real estate sold by Il to the defendant IN
error was reasonably necessary TO the
overcise of the powers and duties CON
ferred upon II by the Legislature. rms
was question Of fact, the decision OF
which depends upon the testimony anu
The circuit Court to which the whole case
was submitted without jury, upon 'nal
iesne found for the defendant. us
i,,7gn,ent Is before this court for review
az mon n demurrer TO the evidence ana
,',,r,st.,nr that rule of decision we cannot
sav mat the Judgment was without eVi-
1once or so plainly against the eVidehce
as to require its reversal
WHEN STATUTE BEGINS TO Run
prford etc. VS. North Roanoke Lana
Corononv. Appeal dismissed. OPINION
by Keith. T. .,,,,a
The motion TO dismiss is on the ground
.bot the right TO appeal was barred Dy
~nction 2A55 of the Code, which pre-
scrIbes that the petition for appear mus
be presented within six months from
the date" Of the decree appeaieu lroln
Held: The limitation begins 10 run
So, The actual date of the decree, not
from the beginning or end OF the 'ei ~
at which 1t was rendered.
RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
croner etc. VS.. Foster, etc. Reversed
opinion by Rely, J.
Weld. /. Every riparian owner mas the
right to the water frontage belonsiHs
bv nature TO his land which includes
the right OF access TO the naVlGaple paI'
of the water course, and the rlSht Oh 'he
soil under the water between MS iahu
and such navigable line, etc, SUBJECT
20 the regulations of the Legislature as
70 the erection OF wharves etc.
. He may have the extent OF his
right on the navigable line, and his
share of the land under the water, de-
fined; and court of equity Is the pro
per tribunal. The prime object in making
apportionment should be TO give TO eacn
proprietor of the shore. and as directlY
I'm his front as practicable. lana unoer
the water of a width on the navigabie
line proportional to its width at the
shore line. This is often impracticabe
and the general rule of division Is. as the
whole shore line is to the whole lire OF
navieability so is each ones share Of
the shore line 10 each ones share or the
line of navigabiity The lines so drawn
Will be parallel, or diverge, or con
verge. as the navigable water line hap
pens 10 be equal ana parallel with, or
is longer or shorter than the shore line
The question of value is an incident
Of the location of the land, and cannot
be considered in apportioning the water
font.
;. While at common law, high-water
mark was the boundary Of the riparian
owner by an act of 1919, IT was declared
that low-water mark should be the