Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-11

aims % courts TO do otherwise thel
schemes for furnishing 10 the WOl MI
ciassas and men of moderate incomes
cheap and simple substitute LOT hAe-'''
! surance cannot De accom- ,,,,.
DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF TIME.
,+a,tic and Danyille Railroad Company
rs. fronmonger. Reversed. opinion pS
| Buchanan. }. 800. .,,i. o,,o
sine the writ was awarded in TINS case
| the case of the same plaintim VS.. kleset
! which arose out or the stin SAINT, cCrtroie
| mas been decided, and Nlrtudliy Ncli''Oi'
| tho material questions raised heIv en-.
/ So the right of a married woman ~
! recover damages for expenses OF . 80
of time was fully considered III 49, -,
| Railway and Electric Company Va
| Rowles. q Va, 7SS, and the concluslon
| reached that. Notwithstanding cnap'eI 40
| of the Code the. husband Is sun en.ltie . /,
| 10 the services of his vile ana ~ Douiln
for her support. and IN an dC'l"h III
damages for personal injury TO her' loss
of time is not an element OF uaudse' III
less averred i'm the declaration ana SHOWN
I'm the proof that she was a sole llduei >
nor are the costs Of her cure, uIieSS IL
be averred and proved that she pald suSh
costs out of her separate estate.
The record here shows her 20 nave beeu
"a married woman but there IS neither
allegation nor proof that she was a sole
trader. or that the costs were palo out
Of or that she had. separate estate:
Held. The court erred, therefore, IN ul-
recting the jury 20 consider these twO
items in making up their Nerdlcl. Auete
proof OF loss OF time ana 81 I,ctio;,
paid for her cure. Under the INSTRUCTION
lie Jury ought TO have considered these
items and we cannot say they ala nol uo
what they ought 20 have done, ana that
though the instruction was erroneous II
was harmless error.
Where the passenger is in vehlcle
nv invitatiOn OF the owner and driver
and is exercising no control over MN me
negligence Of the driver cannot De I'M
puted to the passenger.
same VS.. Mrs. James. BY agreement Oh
counsel the decision i'm the case Just re-
ported is to prevail in TINS.
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith, p:
Jordan and ais. vs. llggan ana ais
CORPORATION Court city Of Lynchburg. Re
Versed.
Judge John W. Rely:
Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor vs..
Oeters. Law and Equity Court CITY Oh
Richmo' Reversed.
Iudge s. Buchanan:
Atlanti, / Danville Railroad COM
pany vs. In ohger. Hastings Court city
OF Portsmouth. Reversed.
Atlantic and Danville Railroad Com
pany VS.. James. Hastings Court city
of Portsmouth. Reversed.
Judge George NJ. Harrison:
Breeder and ais. VS.. Haney and ais.
Dulaney vs.. Willis and ais. Chancery
Court city of Richmond. Reversed
Building, Light and Water Company VS..
Frav sc Corporation Court OF Buena
Vista. Writ of error and supersedeas.
Bond. $3.50.
Francis vs.. Cline. Circuit Court OF Taze- |
well county. Appeal and supersedeas
Bond, $780,
Fadeley. &c, administrator vs.. WI
iams. Circuit Court Of Shenandoah coun- |
ty. Writ Of error awarded. No bond re- |
CURED.
Daracott and ais. vs.. Daracott and ais. (
Circuit Court OF Hanover county. Appeal |
refused
Fulton vs.. Vaughan. Circuit Court OF 1
5rayson county. Appeal refused.
AllemOng VS. Harnsberger. circuit Court |
)f Rockingham county. Appeal refused.
Ouarles's Administrator VS. Chesapeake |
md Ohio Railway Company. Circuit |
Court OF Hanover county Writ Of error
'efused.
Wingo VS. williams. Circuit Court Of
tiles county. Writ of error refused.
CardWell. receiver. W. Kelly. Petition |
O rehear. Petition refused.
city Of Norfolk vs.. Norfolk Landmark
publishing Company et ais. Petition TO
ehear. Petition refused.
Guarantee Company. OK North America !
g. First National Bank, Lynchburg. Pc
ltion 10 rehear. Petition refused.
Mechanism vs.. Roanoke Iron Company !
&C.. Petition 10 rehear. Petition refused
ROchercharlie vs.. Rochercharlie Fur
her argued by f. S, Kirkpatrick. ESQ,
or appellant and submitted
Board Of Supervisors OF N0ttOway W.
lowell. Argued by General George J.
Iundley and continued until to-day.