The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-29

same. The whole matter OF law and fact
was submitted to the court which decid-
ed I'm his favor. city appealed.
Heidi. The only difference between this
case and that OF Ould e. Darlington W.
the City of Richmond (23 Graf. i6D is
that Cooke is not a resident In the NUM-
cipaity. as Ould &c Darlington were
?. The Legislature may authorize mum
icipal corporations to impose taxes upon
persons whose ordinary avOcatiaus are
pursued within the corporate limits n
though residing beyond those limits. in
Ike manner as upon residents. Dillon.
Munic. Corp. sec 79l. note ]. In city OF
wilmington VS.. Roby lredell Oh hui-
lin. G. j., said: 1T is right that II should
be so: for as the defendant has III the Sc
curity Of his property the benefit OF the
nigh watch and Of the police estaoilsh-
ments. he ought to contribute reasohaply
10 thelr EXPENSE. Edonton vs.. Capehart'
II y. c. 1873: Savannah vs. Hines. - va
9lC. w. L. Tel. co. vs. Richmond 70 Hrat'.
10. g,
3 The charter Of Petersburg (sec. 2
Oh A empowers the city Council TO raise
annually by taxes and assessments III
said CITY necessary sums OF money 10 oe-
FRAY the expenses OF the same IN a'-
cordance with tho laws Of the state ana
the United States and an attorney nav
inc his Office and place OF business III
the city. and practicing his prolesslon
therein though residing outside the lih'lS,
is as much liable 10 the tax on attorney y
ms those residing within the limits am"
the tax so imposed Is no more an en-
croachmout upon the constitutional ilHli's
of the citizen in one case imam III INC
other.
Judge John W. Rely-lI ,l,ls > ,'o,,rt,,
Hite. Circuit Court CT Luie''0''7
Nm Jnd@e r. IT, Cardwcll saunders , vs..
p~n,fv Circuit Court Of Franklin couh-
". Affirmed. co.,,o circuit
Cont cltv of Petersburg. reversed. ,.s
T-dro John 4. Buchanan-Roberi70 son W
smith Chancery Court city OF hi'"-
Im5oo Geo N. Internationally "
ais. vs.. Strauss & ais. 'hahcety - "'
Rncharan. j.. dissenting; Keith, T., con-
curing with him v--u. cir
Russell creek coal Co. W. Wells or
cult Court OF Wise county. writ oil t'io'
ana Enderscn' &C.. VS.. Preston Land co;
Circuit Court ~ Roanoke county. Appear
and supcrsedeas. r,.tt.,, g.
Ma Meadows l.. & ]. 60. VS.. brldse. q
ais. Circuit court ct w 'i' ''"''''' -+i
poal and supcrecdc1s. ,...r, -
Trimble vs. Trimhe. Circuit Court or
C;ravson county Appeal and supcrsedeaH'
VIRGINIA Fire and Mar. ms. 60. vs..
Goode A ais Circuit Court or fauquier
cruntv Writ of error and supersedeas.
Mutual Life ms. 60. SIS. kutnt Ilol ~
law and Equity Court CITY OF hlchlhou"'
writ of error and superscdeas.
Fowlkos' admir-. VS.. y. q w. X. X. 30.
Circuit Court Of NOttoway county. VIII
of error refused .t. 60,
Sornor VS. Hodgccock circuit court
Of Pulaski county. Appeal and supeIses,,
IDEAS refused. l.,..,. 60,
of Wise county. Appeal refused.
Duval VS. Hickman MIG. Co.. 'iIcui'
Court of Russell county Appeal refused
Sims VS.. Tyrcr. Petition TO rehear. feu-
tion refused. ...- 49,. ...t.,,,r
/ Petition refused. -.
Winter VS. Southern Loan and INV CO.
Petition tc rehoar Petition refused.
Banner US. ROssor. order dismlsslns
cause set aside and cause rclnstated on
docket az W ythoyillc.
Ross admir-. US. HugheN admr: argued
hv Nar,u4 Jones. ESQ. for appellant. ana
John y. Donovan and q. T. Cary Esqs'
for appollces. and submitted
Next cases 20 Doe called are Nos. AZ Ano
~. Baltimore steam Packet co. VS.. VIII
/ Hams and y. y. +. and y r. r. 90. vs.
/ same. W. w. SCOTT.