Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-31
PLANyERCANbR EDGE
ssrsEME COURT HOLDS THE OLD
LAW HAS BEEN REPEALED.
II MAS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
The Court Afsrms the Decision of
the Htchmond Court In Jones VS..
Morris-Fraud ana Misrepresenta-
tion-A Quesuon of Pleading.

Opinions were handed down in four
cases in the Supreme Court OF Appeals
yesterday. The lower courts were re-
verscd, except in the case of Jones VS..
Morris. in which the judgment OF the
Law and Equity Court Of Richmond was
affirmed.
In the case OF Somers Va. the Common
wealth is decided the question as to whe-
Their II Is a criminal offence TO take oys-
tiers with dredges on private oyster
ground. The court holds. In an opinion
by Judge Rely. that dredging on such
ground ceased 70 be criminal with the
passage OF the act OF March 3. 1898.
The case came 10 the Supreme Court
from the County Court OF Accomac. The
opinion says that the act Of April rs, 1887
acts Extra Session. 1887, page liS), and
the act OF March 8. 1888 (Acts 1878,
page $3.50. amcndatory thereof among
other things contained q provision
against dredging on private OYSTER
ground, even by the owner Of the planted
oysters. prescribing 4 penalty for each
infected by the adoption of the Code or
1887. by the act of March 3. 1898 (Acts
1878, page f45), the act OF March ., 1885,
and section 2I4S Of the Code. are amend
ed and re-eDacted, and while the proN-
sion against dredging IL retained there
Is no penalty prescribed for It's violation.
The court holds that the latter act was
Intended 10 be repeal OF all parts and
provisions Of the statutes amended,
which were omitted from IL. 1t is neces-
ssrily implied that what Is left out is no
longer In force. The judgment OF the
lower court is reversed, and the warrant
against the plaintiff in error for dredging
OH his private ground is dismissed.
Mr. Morris Wins His Cnse.
President Keith wrote the opinion in the
case OF Jones vs. Morris in which the
judgment Of the Law and Equity Court
Of Richmond r. affirmed.
This case has attracted a good deal Of
attention. DR.. "A. G. Jones, the quaran-
tine officer of Newport News. on the Sth
OF April. 1897, sued out n warrant In that
city for the arrest Of j. {. Morris, or
Richmond. on the charge Of stealing $40
from him. Morris was arrested in Rich
mond and had hearing before the Police
Court Of this city. lie was acquitted and
discharged. Thereupon Morris sued ID.
Jones for malicious prosecution, and the
jury found verdict for $1,000 DIR. Jones
appealed and lost his case.
Morris was the captain Of a tugboat
owned and controlled by DR.. Jones. He
received salary Of $50 per month. on
January 8. 1897, he went into Newport
News I'm command Of the tugboat Henry
Christian. and went TO the Office Of the
owner Of IL, the plaintiff In error. and
was told by him that his services We're
.I..l H.. ttsf. .l.I ala
Captain Lawrence in charge Of the tug.
There was balance of s1756 due Morris.
but DR.. Jones said he couldn't settle at
that time.
Subsequently Morris. while still master
of the vessel. colectedS4O due for towage.
and he claimed the right to retain out
Of this fund the balance due him. DR..
Jones refused TO accept any part Of the
money unless the whole was turned over
to him. Jones finally yielded 10 the ex-
tent Of allowing Morris to retain the bal
ance OF 1870 due him on his December
salary Later on. Or. Jones had Morris
arrested. charged with theft.
NO GROUND FOR THEFT CHARGE.
The Courts opinion says that there was
not the shadow of reason to charge Nor
rs with larceny, and concludes:
'As we have already seen. the evidence
affords a strong ground for the opinion
that plaintiff in error was actuated by a
fixed purpose 10 prosecute the defendant
In error and IL by no means satisfactorily
appears that full disclosure was made
of circumstances to either of his attOr-
neys, certainly not TO Mr.. Boykin. who
not only did not hear the case fully. but
expressly declined to give any opinion
upon it. and it is not less certain that
Moss, the other counsel was not fully
advised. Plaintiff in error enters into no
particulars as TO the communications
made by him TO his counsel He states
In general terms that he stated the case
fully 10 Mr.. Moss, but 1t appears that he
did not tell him that he had employed
defendant In error. paying him $50 per
month from the LIST of December TO the
LIST of January; that he had discharged
him without giving any reason for the
act; that he had held back a part of his
money; that his name still remained
upon the papers of the tugboat as captain
after his discharge, and when he collected
the money in controversy, or that Cap
tain Morris had told him that he mad
been advised by counsel that he was en-
titled TO claim his salary for the entire
month. These material facts and per-
haps others, were not communicated to
either Of the counsel Of plaintiff in error.
II Morris, having received the money of
his employer fraudulently, converted II
10 his own use, he was guilty of larceny;
but II, having the money OF his employer
IN his possession. he stood ready 10 &C.
count for any balance that he believed TO
be due. and claimed the right to retain
Cor a debt that he believed due himself,
then he was not guilty of larceny. IL
was. therefore, conspicuously a case
in which the frankest disclosure CT all
the attending circumstances should have
been made before branding as a gelon a
man who had heretofore borne good
!. .characttr In the community. and who
vplaintiff In error himself had accredited
as worthy OF confidence. We are oil
opinion that the judgment should be af-
froed.
fraud and Misrepresentation.
Nelson and wife VS. Turner, ct ais, and
Neson and wife VS. Maryland Life In
.surance Company, ct als.s were two ods,s
decided together. They came UP froAi
the Circuit Court Of Fauquier county.
Questions Of alleged fraud and misrepre-
sentaton were involved.
In September, 1883. II. J. Packwood and
y wife conveyed 10 Peter Wise a tract
I II 1spd 10 hold as In fee. provided he per-
formed his covenants and paid to Pack
wood or 10 his wife. II she survived him.
an annuity OF $500. payable semi-annu-
ally; that upon the death of the grantol $
Nise convey the land TO Joseph III. Nell
son, and 10 reoonyey the land TO Pack
wood, or his wife. II she survive him. upon