Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-18

considered in Buntin VS.. City of Danville
% Va, and cases there cited.
The act, 4th Queen Anne, and the al
most Identical act of October 81, 1851,
did not establish as public highways all
roads in use at the date Of their passage;
nor can a dedication or acceptance be
presumed, because records have been
lost or destroyed, the effect of such loss
being TO change the mode of proof as to
their contents and TO admit secondary evil
dence in the place Of exemplihcation of
the records.
3. Easements-'"The use and enjoyment
Of what is claimed must have been adj
verse, under a claim of right, exclusive,
continuous, uninterrupted, and with the
knowledge and acquiescence of the owner
Of the estate" Washburn on Easements,
| etc, $50. There being 20 evidence what
ever that there was ever any enjoyment
of a right of way over the land in ques-
ton by the appellee and those under
whom he claimed adverse at any time
to appellant or those under whom he
| claimed, the case is reversed in this par
ticular.
JUDGE OR JURY.
City Of Lynchburg VS.. Wallace. Re-
yersed. Opinion by Keith, Z. Dissent
ing, Harrison, j.
In February, 1895, w. slipped and fell,
breaking her arm. The street was COW
cred with ice. formed from water from
the gutter of an adjacent house. She
had, four or five days before, seen this
ice on the sidewalk, and had avoided it,
but il had become concealed by a recent
fall of snow, and seeing nothing 10 warn
her of danger, and supposing the walk
to be safe, she walked on at her usual
gait, and the fall ensued. Verdict, for
Sl,G5O. and writ of error. The contention
was mainly over the instructions. The
decision is reversed upon a clause in the
third instruction-that previously know
ing of the defect and assuming, as she
had a right to do, that the city had re-
moved the same, and sufficient time had
elapsed for its removal, and believing
that the city had performed its duty,
she would not be guilty Of such con-
tributory negligence by going on the do
feet hidden by the recent snow as would
bar her recovery.
Held: This accumulation of ice had
been on the street for several days; was
known to W., and she had avoided it
on former occasions. The weather mean
time had been cold, and it was for the
jury TO say mot for the Court, taking
all these facts into consideration. whether
she had a right to assume that the city
lluu ltlLlONtu tue utlttls VI was ut6lktlI |
its failure TO do so.
Harrison, j., dissenting. Traveller on
a street may assume that it is safe:
need not anticipate danger, and must
exercise such ordinary and reasonable
care as TO avoid danger that is open
and obvious. Osborne VS.. Pulaski Light
and Water Company, q S. L. r., Sl2. The
instructions. while ~awkwardly expressed,
sufficiently informed the jury as to travel
1aVfa He. aII ,AnIau -. .u-
gethCr, the right to recover was made TO
on jury's belief from the evidence
enough time had elapsed for the
city TO remove the ice and TO Justify
travellers assumption that sidewalk was
safe. Under the facts proved a different
verdict could not have been rightly found
and, therefore, city was not preiudiced.
though instructions were defective.
Railway Company VS.. Garth
wright, 92 Va, GIL.
TAX ON NATIONAL-BANK STOCKS.
VS.. Smith. Treasurer. Affirmed.
Opiniog by Harrison, j.
The question is whether a debtor own
ng n-ational-bank stocks is entitled to
his indebtedness deducted from the
Of such stock before it is assessed
or taxation.
Held: !. 1t is clear that no such right {
Nists' Bank stock is property to be 7
assessed at its value like all other pro-
'erty-not an evidence of debt due the {
,wner of 1t within the meaning of the I
acts 1SS9-'9O, page 1919 7
:. The act is not in conflict with sec '
ion 52l9 of Revised Statutes of the United 1
states, the object of which is to prevent
discrimination by States against rational
'anks in the matter of taxation. Ii does S
and was not intended 10, discrimi-
iate against national banks. Under IL
aN-payers cannot deduct their indabted-
from the value of their Investments a
D any KIM of stock, banking or other S
but only from bonds. notes. and f
-her evidences Of debt, the object being c
} prevent double taxation. d
PLEADINGS. u
hewning & Sands VS.. Wilkinson. Re- -
yersed. Opinion by Harrison, j. n
Action OF covenant on a paper under y,
'al setting out that Pollard, trustee for :
oafns, with the consent of Chewing q =
lnds, had paid Wilkinson $500. which
IN Wilkinson applied as a credit on
> claim against Adams-a second lien
property sold by Chewing az Sands. 4
e proceeds OF that sale having been (
'phed otherwise than to the satisfac- \
IN or the first lien held by them-and
una himself to make good any balance
y exceeding S0U, that may be due on
G nrst lien after the exhaustion Of an a
{ securities and the sale Of all the pro- -
rty Oh sald Adams which Chewing a. u
nds might have as security for nav r,
INT OF their claim. The decIa ration
a balance OF 1926 due on the first
II after the exhaustion Of these seen A
les and the property. Defendant a
'aded conditions performed" and y
.ovenants not broken" All OF his evi- :