The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-11-19
DECISION ON THE
HOMESTEAD ACT
(Contlnued from FIrst Page.)

1. THAT the said homestead deed was
made with intent 10 delay. hinder and
defraud the creditors Of Chas. A. Harley.
?. Because the purchase price OF the
goods claimed in said homestead deed has
not been paid. and that said Harley is
not entitled 10 hold them under the home
stead law. That If any part Of the goods
embraced in the tinstalment contracts
mentioned I'm said deed had been paid for
they were 50 intermingled by the claim
ant as to place upon him the burden Of
showing in this proceeding which he had
paid for and which be had not paid for
and that since the evidence fails TO show
this the goods will be taken 20 be wholly
OF the latter class.
g. Because the said claim OF home
stead is i'm property which at the time IL
was delivered 10 the ins.alment purchas-
ers formed a part OF a shifting stock Of
goods owned or employed by Chas. \.
Harley in the way of trade, and being
sold and converted into money daily,
contrary 10 the true intent and meaning
Of the homestead laws Of virginia
MR.. CARDWELL'S OPINION.
Mr.. Cardwel In his opinion. says:
"As 10 the first ground relied on by the
counsel for creditors. ] cannot see how,
emption allowed by the laws Of Virginia.
a debtor can be accused OF intent to him
der delay and dcf.1ud his creditors.
Whatever may be the merits or demegits
OF the statute. II IS laW. and he has the
right 70 claim his homestead. lie Is. by
the evidence adducod before me-, a house
holder. and residing n this state and
the property must be shown to be within
the exceptions Of the 'atute 10 prevent
his being put I'm possess on Of Il.
"As to the second ground of defence.
upon a careful examination OF all OF the
evidence produced before the referees, ]
am Of the opinion that the bankrupt has
now come within the decision Of the Su-
,rerne Court Of Arpoais OF Virginia as
laid down I'm Rose VS. Sharpless, % Graft,
1s3. upon which the said report of VIII
liam T. Wickham. referee. was based;
that s. to saw. that the bankrupt has cor
roborating evidence 10Th direct and cir
cumstantial. T. his own testimony. that
the goods IN which ie claims his home
stead have been nail FOR. II IL true that
he has not proved con IsiVeiy mat every
particular item OF The GOODS SOLD on the
instalment plan and cFiuenced by the
contracts In which he Claims MS home
stead. have been paid Tor but l do not
think that such absolute NN- ~ ~ ''b
be reasonably required. lie has positively
stated IN his own testimony that the
goods have been paid FOR. lie has the evil
lence Of parties who sold many Of the
goods for MIN that the goods which they
sold were pair Tor. IIe has evidence that
he instructed his salesman. not to sell
GOODS unless they were raid for. showing
them tho different goods I'm his establish
ment and in addition TO that. many Of the
contracts bear date prior 70 their bills as
shown in the proof Of the claims of the
creditors .,.
OPINION REVERSED.
"The third ground Of deience Is evidently
based ON the ouaere in Rose vs.. sharpless.
7 40 not sec how goods actually delivered
can be considered % shifting stock, even
though TIE seller has the right TO recover
them If rot paid FER s ra ea. ISe a,, woSe
BILE from tn general stock
TN view Of the reasons above given.
sa.,tor that the bankrupt Is en-
s Tiled a 70 his homestead as claimed in his
schedule fled with his petition"