Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-02-05
COURT OF APPEALS.

of Richmond against the Dank. Inls
was a case in which check was raised
from the original amount written by
the drawer. The bank sought to hold
the customer responsible for the
amount Of the raised check, and filed
demurrer to the plea, which the low
er court overruled.
The court finds that the form of &C.
ton taken in the lower court was
proper and no error was committed in
refusing to dismiss the suit because it
was brought in the name of the wrong
plaintiff and in allowing the pleading
to be amended.
"Drawing check in favor of the
stranger was not the proXimate cause
of the loss," says the opinion. The
that could have been as readily perpe-
trated by an acquaintance. To hold
that giving check to stranger where
no business relation existed between
the drawer and himself, was sufficient
evidence of negligence to excuse the
bank and impose the loss upon the
drawer. If the check was forged by
raising it to larger amount than 1t
was given for, would be to release the
banks from the first responsibility i'm
| posed upon them by the law as custo'
dams of the customers money, and ex-
pose the depositor5 to risk and dan
ger that would greatly impair the use
fitness of the bank as a safe place OF
deposit"
Judge John A. Buchanan wrote the
| opinion in the case of the Western
| Union Telegraph Company VS.. Powell,
appealed from the Richmond Circuit
Court. Suit was brought to secure for
| mistake made in message forfeiture
of 500 by the company, as provided by
sections 1901 and 1892 of the code, to the
plaintiff.
The message 10 dispute was sent
from Matthews Courthouse to Rich
mond, first over the Tidewater Tele-
phone Company, and then over the
Western Union, and mistake was
made in it. The case was decided in
favor of the plaintiff in the lower court.
The opinion says that it was shown
that the mistake occurred before the
message reached the defendant. Moth
ing, however, was shown to prove that
the defendant company did not proper
ly transmit the message. The plaintiff,
il holds, did not satisfactorily prove
the first count, which was based on sec
ton 1891, and the second, based on
section 1899, does not warrant recov-
cry. The company demurred to this
count and the lower court overruled it,
which is held to be an error. The Cir
cult Courts decision is reversed.
In the case of Wallace vs. the city OF
Richmond petition to hear was re
fused yesterday. In this case the plaintiff
sues the city for whisky lost at the time
of the evacuation.
In the case of Staples and wife vs.. the
Savings Bank of Richmond, decided by
he Circuit Conrt of Richmond, the ap-
peal was refused.
By Judge James Keith, P. Ross's adj
ministrator VS.. Hughes's administrator
and others, Circuit Court Of Gloucester
county; affirmed.
By Judge John W. Rely. City Of
Norfolk vs. Pollard, Corporation Court
city of Norfolk; reversed.
By Judge r. H. Cardwell. City Of
Norfolk vs.. Johnakin, Corporation
Court city of Norfolk; affirmed.
| McClanahan and others vs.. Roanoke
Iron Company, Hastings Court city Of
Roanoke; appeal allowed; bond $3.50.
Penn and others vs.. Hearon for, etc.,
Circuit Court of Washington; appeal
and supersedeas; bond 500.
Max Grief vs.. n. & w. r. r. Co.,
writ of error and supersedeas; bond
$500.
Com monwealth VS.. Pryor, Circuit
Court of Montgomery, writ Of error and
supersedeas awarded.
Fitzmoyer and others vs.. Holsinger.
Circuit Court of Shenandoah county;
writ of error and supersedeas awarded;
bond 81 900.
Jackson vs.. Jackson, Circuit Court OF
Chesterfield; appeal refused.
Keister and others VS.. Pulaski Land
and Improvement Company, Circuit
Court of Pulaski; appeal and superse-
IDEAS refused.
Fuller VS.. Conrad; petition to rehear
refused.
Woodbridge, Travers & Co. vs. Green;
petition to rehear refused.
Morotock Insurance Company We.
Fostoria Novelty Company; further ar
gued and submitted.
Freeman's admr. VS.. Buffers; argued
for appellee and submitted.
The next cases to be called are Bur-
russ VS.. Hines, No. Sc, and Sulphur
Mines Company VS.. Phenix Insurance
Company, No. 81.
The Southern Railway Company Vs.
Cook case, No. GO, has passed to March
term.
Welded AT 81 AND &c. S. Van
Buskirk, aged 81, and Mrs. Antoinette
Benbrook, aged 7G, were married on
Saturday at. Somerville, N. J. The
bride resided until recently with her
son Frederick, and the bridegroom,
who is widower. lived in Plainield.
A fow years ago Frederick Benbrook
married a daughter of Mr.. Van Bus
kirk and the preparations for the we'd
ding of the young people brought the
aged couple together. There was much
objection on the part of their relatives
to union between them, and the mar
riage has long been deferred.
Recently they concluded that the OBJ
e ,I,o ron-o -, -