Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-11-24
1@ot1 Saa4aboNM

Hoods pills cure liver Ills; the nonirritsting ara
only cathartic 10 take With Hoods sIrsapaIll a.
-,.------.-s-s-ss-s -'s~'
premises to be used as a highway while
the bridge was being constructed. On me
night u October u.s. 1897. William Mar
shall left Stanton upon horseback t'
visit his brothers and sisters. The nieh
was very dark. and when he reached th'
temporary roadway he fell and was kill
cd
GROUNDS OF DECISION.
Held: II is the duty Of railroad
company to exercise reasonable care Il
making a temporary roadway reasonably
safe.
A traveller injured upon public high
way has. in this State, no right Of actor
against the county authorities
Contributory negligence is matter o
defence. and the burden of establishing
IL is upon the defendant.
If the trial judge is dissatisfied VIII
the verdict and grants new trlal some
latitude must be allowed 20 his discretion
especially where the prOpriety OF It's eN
ercise is affirmed by a verdict on sucf
new trial for the party to whom il was
granted. However. the verdict of IN.
Jury is entitled TO great respect anC
should not be disturbed even by the ula
court unless plainly against the weight
of evidence.
The jury also found that tho plaintiff
was not guilty Of cOntrbutory ne6Is nee
and the opinion concludes
owe cannot say that controutory negl
cence on the part OF the deceased is q
certain and incontrovertible inference
from the evidence. Whether or not tina
inference is to be drawn from the fact
proved is a question about which reason
able men may fairly differ, and Whei
that IS the case am issue is presented
for the determination Of the jury. and th'
verdict on the first trial should NOT nave
been disturbed. kimbal W. Frenu, y
va. 10. The judgment complained o
must Doe reversed and judgment enterel
Tor The plaintff I'm error for 81 700. VIII
interest from the 23d day OF May, 1875
with costs
4 Richmond Tax Case.
Judge Rely wrote very able opinion
I'm the case OF Wilis'e Executors vs.. ln'
Commonwealth from the Hastings cour
Of the city of Richmcrd 1t appears tha'
bv three several conveyances the lestd-
Tor Of plaintiffs in error conveyed certain
real estate to the Chamber of Commerce
David r. Iumsden. and John NJ. Noting
and reserved IN each case a perpetual
ground rent to be paid in annual install
ncnte. and the question was whether INC
tcetator's estate was TO be charged with
taxes simply on the ground rent or on
the value OF principal or corpus produc-
ing the ground rent The Commissioners
of the Revenue ASSESSES the estate VIII
the amount OF money TO produce tht
ground rent at per cent. and this Va.
1. faN
assessed. The court below upon ih'
hearing of the motion. refused TO eXone
rato the Estate from the payment Of DO.
tax assessed.
Each OF the conveyances set forth ln
tho record conveys to the grantee the
whole estute OF the grantOr in the realty
described. subject TO fixed annual
ground rent or rent charge to be foreVei
paid TO the grantor. his heirs, persona
representatives. or assigns, and also SUBJ
iect bv the express terms Of the grant &c
the right OF distress and re-entry upon
oefaul. IA IT'S payment
The reservation Of the ground rent con
stitutes in each case the sole consldeia
ton Tor the conveyance. Provision Is
made by the redemption Of the land IRON
the ground rent upon the payment OF
specified sum after q certain number oI
wears. but this right Of redemption Il
wholly optional with the grantee. Inn
is not an unusual provision in convey
anca OF this kind. and in no way aheO"
tho character Of the rent charge.
PRINCIPLES or DECISION
There is nothing upon the face or 'h'
conveyanCcs or in the record 10 "aIi'.n
tho conclusion that they are MOI 's"se
In disguise. or here resorted 10 LOT III
purpose of evading the payment OF Az
Ground rents, though not common III III
State. are yet recognized as NaHu'
. A rent charge or gIouhu REM - - ~,
- roal estate and subject to all its IN
cidents. 1t descends on the oealh Oh VI
owner 10 his heir or devisees, and Is SUP
iect To curtosy and dover
,rbe entry Of the ground rents In con
troversv upon the personal properU
hook bv the Commissioner or the heNe
nue as a charge against the executors q
me decedent. if liable 10 taxation, wa
ir,nroper. and should have been stricke
therefrom under the motion Of the PLAIN
tiff in error.
? Ground rents are under the law 10
taxable as real estate This kind OF estat
i'm land Is separate and distinct from IN
land itself. and IS clearly not embrace
within the statutes enacted by the Legit
|
lots. Whether the omission was inten
tonal or unintenuonal. the result is IN
| same 1t is not the province or With
| the power OF the court 10 make the as
sessment. Untn the Legislature has see
| nj 10 provide FOR its taxation and pre-
| scribes how its value shall be ascertain
| ed. IL cannot be % scssed with taxes.
The HASTINGS Court erred In refusing
cxonerate the plaintiffs in error from II
payment OF the State taxes and the ~
premo Court enters such judgment as
ought TO have entered.
They VIII Have New Trials.
| The case OF Robert Bundick vs.. Il
] Commonwealth, from the County COu
OF northampton. came up on a writ
error granted by one of the Supren
| Court judges II appears that on IL
night of January "a, 1859. the house
! John w Tankard. OF Northampton, wa
| entered and &17 in money and conside
! able amount in bonds were carried ava
| Robert Burdick and his wife were a
rested and convicted OF the crime y
ccivlng sentence Of fifteen years.
The supreme Court orders a new tria
holding the evidence upon which Bun
dick and his wife were convicted insult
cient. The opinion. by Judge Cardwel
points out that the footprints about n
house were never cOnclusiyely shown
be those OF the accused, no footprint
| were traced from Tankards house
| Buudicks and a knife found In n
! dinlng-room was not absolutely identiht