Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-04-02
COURT OF APPEALS.
The following opinions were rendered
Yesterday:

The following opinions were rendered
yesterday:
Richmond and Manchester Railway
Company vs.. Moore's administrators
This is a case in which Moore, boy
eight wears old, lost his life at Forest
Hill Park last summer while witnessing
a balloon ascension. The lad was stand
ing in a crowd when the balloon fell
and knocked pole down. This struck
Moore and killed him. In the court be-
low a verdict was given for $4,000. An
appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.
That tribunal yesterday affirmed the
lower court. The plaintiff insisted that
the balloon ascension took place under
an independent contractor. The Appel.
late Court, however, held that the COM
pany was responsible for proper safe
guards being thrown around persons on
their grounds.
In the case of Blankenship VS.. the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, the
court reversed the Richmond Circuit
Court. This suit, which was for $40, 1000,
grows out of the injury of the plaintiff
by a locomotive on the defendants
tracks, near Hollywood. The accident
occurred ten years ago when Blanken.
ship was mere child. The court holds
that the law does not require that q
child shall exercise the same degree of
care and caution as person of mature
years, but only such care and caution
as person of its age and discretion
would naturally and ordinarily use.
This was the instruction asked for
in the lower court and refused. "This
Instruction." said Judge Buchanan,
who wrote the opinion for the court,
Estates the law and ought to have been
given" The opinion goes on: GAL
though the plaintiff may have been
guilty of contributory negligence, he
would still be entitled to recover if ii
appeared that the servants of the de-
PENDANT in charge of the engines did
not do all they could consistently with
their own safety to avoid the injury az
ter his danger was known" The judg-
ment of the Circuit Court is reversed
and new trial is awarded.
RAIDER and ais. VS.. Holston National
Building and Loan Association; Cor
poration Court city of Bristol. This
case is before us upon petition for an
appeal and supersedeas to a decree of
the Corporation Court of Bristol ap-
pointing a receiver of the defendant
company, and we deem it proper that
further proceedings should be had in
that co,lrt before an RDneal is allowed.
1t is suggested in the petition for an
appeal that the judge of the Corpora
ton Court is a stakeholder in the de-
PENDANT company, which, iftrue, would
him as judge, but of this
fact there appears as yet to be no proof
in The record. We are of opinion that
the petition should be refused"
Shields and others VS.. Mahoney and
others, from Circuit Court of Norfolk
city; reversed.
Sulphur Mines Company OF Virginia
vs.. Boswell, Bowman and Shuman and
ais, Circuit Court of Louisa county; re.
versed.
Camp VS.. Bruce, Circuit Court of
Nansemond county appeal and super
sedeas; bond $3.50
Carter vs.. Carter, Circuit Court OF
Grayson county; appeal and superse'
IDEAS; bond 5000
Manly Manufacturing Company vs..
Broaddus &C., argued by Marshall Nc
Cormick and R. T. Barton, and sub
The next case is Sims VS.. Sims.