Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-06-26

| mand. The Court was right in setting
aside tho decree OF January, 1893, Blu
should have left Repass where he stooC
before that decree was entered. In TIL
latter respect It was erroneous and mus
be reversed.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Jackson VS.. Commonwealth Reversed
Opinion by Keith, p.
indictments for maliciously and felo
niously wounding with intent 70 main
! dishgure, and kill. Demurrer to indict.
! ment overruled.
: Held: 1t is unnecessary that indictment
state the weapon with which assault was
made. Canada VS.. Com, 20 Graft, 500.
witnesses excluded from courtroom
on motion Of Commonwealth, but at re-
quest OF Assistant Prosecutor Ratlin, on
| whom the assault was made was per-
| mitted to remain in court during the
| trial.
Held: Trial courts must be allowed a
| discretion in such matters. There might
| be circumstances under which il WOULD
| be improper for, one witness to remain
| while others were excluded; bur 10 con-
stitute ground for reversal, 1t must ap-
pear that the discretion was Improperly
exercised, and that 1t operated to the
injury of the prisoner.
Prisoner was asked II he was animated
Ratlif's premises, and answered: 81 did
not through malice; / thought 1 had a
right to cut off his water" Common
wealth moved to exclude both question
and answer
Held: The question Is leading. and, had
IL been objected to at the proper time
on that account, should have been ex-
cluded; but II was too late to object for
that cause after answer given. "A party,
when examined as a witness. may be
asked as to his own motives or intentions
when these are material" Wharton on
Grim. Evil. Sec. 431; 3 Rice on Evi., Secs.
on, 2S; Kerrains VS.. People, 60 N. Y.
22S; McKown VS. Hunter, 80 n. Y, 625;
People VS.. Baker, Sc N. Y, $40. This as
signment Is we'll taken.
1t was not error to permit the prose
cutting attorney to retire and allow other
attorneys employed by the prosecutor to
conduct the case and open and conclude
the argument. 1t was a matter within
the discretion OF the Court and cannot
be reversed unless shown to be impro-
perly exercised, and that accused was
prejudced thereby.
There is evidence in the record tending |
TO sustain the theories, both OF the pros |
ecution and the defence, and the Court
should have given, when requested. in |
struetions covering both aspects of the !
case. The Court erred in refusing to give
the tenth instruction asked by the de-
fendant-to the effect that If the defend
ant was assaulted while lawfully cut
ting on the water, and reason
ably apprehended the assailant would
do him bodily harm then he had thel
right TO repel such assault by all the
force he deemed necessary; that he was
not compelled TO retreat bur might, in
turn, become the assailant inficting
bodily wounds until his person was out
of danger.
This instruction, together with the
others given the jury, would have been
sufficient to enable 1t to reach proper
verdict.
PRIORITIES.
Max Meadows Land and Iron COMPANY
etc, VI, McGavock. ct. ais. Affirmed
Opinion by Rely, j.
Part Of the real estate OF which Ran
dal McGavock died seized, was purchased
Of Sayers, a vendors lien retained,
and the balance due, 5000. belongs TO
Lawson, appellant. Randall Meg Dor
rowed from tho Pullers. February /, 1883.
10000, for ten years, and gave a deed of
rust on his real estate other than the
Sayers land. March 6. 1890. he conveyed
/ large part of the land subject to this
ncumbrance 10 the Improvement COM
lany for $4,000, which assumed payment
"a INC N0ps " luc WHICH was
Tot due till February l, 1885, and not due
when the DEGREES appealed from were
endered.
His only other debt is the balance Due
N the vendors lien. He left heirs, and
he lands Of which he died seized were.
n great part, allotted TO them in q suit I
rought for that purpose.
The children became involved, and spe-
ifc and general liens were acquired on
heir respective shares. Suits were I
rought 10 enforce these. and the Court. I
aylng ascertained them and established /
heir priorities, decreed sale OF the lands.
Held The vendors lien was properly q
lyen priority over the liens Of the credit 2
rs Of the children, not only on the .
ayers tract. but also ON the other lands {
lherited from their father and allotted !,
, them in partition. The debt OF the an
estor must be first paid out Of his es-
,te and the heirs are only entitled 10 i
ne residue after payment of his debts.
. does not appear that lawson, the
wner OF the vendors lien. has been pre-
ldiced by having his debt apportioned t.