The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-02-05

. Express grants Of powers, 10 public
officers are usually subject TO a strict
Interpretation. and will DC construed as
comforting those powers only which arc
expressly imposed or necessarily I'M
piled Mcchcm on Pub. on. Section oil.
Even more strictly than private general
agents. their authority being a matter OF
record. or OF public law, and 80 caslly
seen ana definitely asccrtaincd. while
that OF the latter is necessarily known
only TO the principal and agent. and es-
pocially because the rights Of large COM
muities are in greater need OF dllgent
guards than those Of private individuals.
Parcel vs.. Barnes, &c. - Ark, 20: a
Of Baltimore IS. Reynolds. ~ Ma, l.
Where 30 rs prescribed 10y an ordinance
that a sale or renting shall be at puplc
auction. IL IS only necessary That IL he
made in public, and 10 the highest DID
der. The duty imposed does not require
The services Of an %auctiOneer. nor is
there the least reason why II could not
Dee discharged by the public officer bim-
self. who. having no authority 10 employ
tho auctiOncer. could not bind the city
for payment for his services.
Q. a person accepting public office with
a fixed compensation is bound TO perform
the duties thereof for such compensation.
He cannot claim extra compensation for
performing any Of the duties Of the Office.
however inadequate his remuneration:
nor can he employ an assistant in his
official duties and bind his principal TO
pay him. unless by express authority or by
necessary implication.
II is a wise and wholesome rule, and
should be rlgidiy enforced. 1 Dillon on
Munic. Corp. Section 233.
AFTER-DIsCOVERED EVIDENCE.
City Of Norfolk VS.. Johnakin. Affirm
ed. Opinion by Judge Cardwell.
j. was driving q dog cart. and one OF the
wheels running over a pile OF dirt in the
street. the Vehicle was upset and J. was
injured. The city was paving the side
walks. the pile had been there several
days and a light had been put IN II the
night before. hut 10 was not lighted the
night Of the accident until after II oc-
CURED. Verdict Of 5000. and appeal.
Two assignments of error. only. con
sidorcd. excessive damages and after dis
covered evidence.
Held: /. The verdict Of n jury Will not
be set aside on the ground Of excessive
damages unless the damages be so great
as TO indicate Partially or prejudice IN
the jury. Richmond Railway Company
VS.. Gathright. o.. Va. 635; y. and W.
Railroad Company ". Shaft. % Va.
2 The circumstances controlling grant
ing new trials fsr after discovered evil
dence are summed up in Nicholas's case.
~ Va, 1873. In this case, the evidence
was known during the trial and with . a
sonable diligence might have been dis
covered before the trial.
The afidavit made In support Of the
motion for "a new trial states thar the
witness. who would testify TO
the after discovered evidence
was ont OF the city and I'm
the petition for the writ OF error It il
stated that IL was endoavored 10 have
him brought into the case 20 testify but
the court overruled a motion 10 have him
sent for and await his arrival. and rem
dered judgment. without his evidence, 10
which exception was taken.
The record fails TO disclose that any
such motion was made and the judgment
will be affirmed.
NO CASE MADE.
Ross Administrator vs.. Hughes. etc.
Affirmed. Opinion by Judge Keith.
This was simply a contention as TO
which of several parties owed "a debt.
The burden was on the plaintiff TO show
which. and failing 10 DO SO. and also
10 show "a case unon which she was onti-
tied to recover at all, the decree Of the
lower court must ne alli iH'Ar
SUMMARY.
In the Court Of Appeals to-day the fol-
lowing opinions were handed down:
Ross administrator vs.. Hughes admin
istrator ct ais. From Gloucester Circuit
Court. Affirmed.
City Of Norfolk VS.. Pollard. From Cor
poration Court of Norfolk. Reversed.
City Of Norfolk vs.. Johnakin. From
Corporation Court of Norfolk. Affirm
ed.
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Powell. From Richmond City Circuit
Court. Reversed.
National Bank Of Virginia VS.. Noting.
From Circuit Court Of city of Richmond.
Affirmed.
Mechanism vs. Roanoke Iron Company.
From Roanoke Hastings Court.
Penn ct ais. rs. Hearon. &c. From
Washington County Circuit Court.
Max Grief VS.. Norfolk and Western
Railroad Company. Writ Of error and
superscdeas.
Commonwealth VS.. Pryor. From Mont
gcmcry Circuit Court. Writ Of error and
sunersedeas.
Fitzmoyer ot ais. vs.. HOlsinger. From
Shenandoah Circuit Court. Writ Of er-
ror and supcrsedeas.
Jackson vs.. Jackson. From Chester
field Circuit Court. Appeal refused.
Keister ct ais. VS.. Pulaski and and
Improvement Company. From Pulaski
Circuit Court. Appeal and supersedeas
refused.
Staples and wife VS.. Savings Bank of
Richmond. From Henrico Circuit Court.
Appeal refused.
Wallace vs.. city Of Richmond. Pcti-
tion TO rchear refused.
Fuller vs.. Conrad. Petition TO rehear
refused.
Woodbridge. Travers & CO. VS.. Green.
Petition 20 rehear refused.
MorotoCk Insurance Company VS.. Fos-
toria Novelty Company. Further argued
ly James =. Harrison. ESQ. for appel
liant. and Il. W.. Peatross, Esq, Tor ap-
pcllce. and submitted.
Fr.umuu~ IrI.fr" for SIS. H'ttars. Az.
gued 10y J. s. Barbour. Esq, for appellee
and submitted.
Robert T.. Pcyton. lr.. was allowed 10
practice as counsel in this court.
Tho next cases 10 be called arc Bprruss
vs.. Hines. No. 5f. and sulphur Mines
Company vs. Phoenix Insurance Comna-
ny. No. b.
Southern Railway Company VS.. Cook.
No. 60. Passed 10 March term.
Pom SIM Youne ,loln >ir.
Miss Annie Louise Roinhardt, the vio-
lnist. VINO came from Washington &c
play at the charity concert Wednesday
$780,