Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-09-24


one Of the most important decisions
handed down by the supreme Court at
stanton last week was that I'm the case
~ George Perkins, for etc. vs.. +. A.
sc.sfrieds Administrator. from the
circuit Court Of Albemarle county. in
which the court construed codicil to the
WIN Of the tcstatrix. which appeared TO
De bcQuest TO the Presbyterian church
OF Charlottesville.
The case was Of interest. because as
A general proposition beQuest TO
church under the Virginia laws Is in
valid. The codicil 20 the will was as fol-
lows
Il herein mention debt OF 500 owe
Pc Presbyterian church Of Charlottes-
vlc Va, and / wish il duly paid. with
,o, interest, ont Of my estate TO that
church after my sister. Mrs. VI. l.. Blank
tr1lrg's death. by Captain W O. Fry.
whom 1 have appointed 10 settle up my
estate. The reason J I'D not mention this
debit in my last will Is because I hoped 20
rly DO during my natural life. and as I
now feel doubtful of this ability. / write
tms instrument i'm consequence"
judge Harrison wrote the opinion.
which discusses quite elaboratcly and
r,.rrv the law in the case. He acknOw-
lDires that the church could not receive
,e-..y under Tire law Of the Common
v.s.fh. hut the Supreme Court rCverses
.be decision Of the lower court. holding
ttst there was no evidence Introduced
M The trial 20 show that II was not the
Intention ~ the testatriN 20 pay debt.
r.s oririon concludes as follows.
.N0thng in this opinion is intended as
a warrant for the conclusion that tes-
iaf1r can. under forms shown TO have
been resorted 20 for the purpose Of evad-
INC the law, best0w upon a church pro-
petty such as the law of this state for
BIDS an organization OF that kind TO ac-
q.re by tcsiamcntary disposition. The
sole evidence OF the testatriX's intention
90 the case at bar is the codicil TO her
Will and as the record does not disclose
even so much as an effort on the part of
,he appellee 20 establish the fact that the
L.sign Of the testatriN was TO circumvent
.ls Jaw, our conclusions are as herein
before stated. For these reasons the de-
cree appealed from must be reversed and
Che cause remauded for further proceed
f-rs 10 be had therein in accordance with
Che views expressed in this opinion.
JUDGE KEITH DISSENTS.
in this case Judge Keith, r., wrote the
following dissenting obluioh.
'Vfh great respect for the opinion OF
The court. l am constrained 10 dissent.
r.at decision disclaims. it is true any
purpose 90 disturb the established policy
NJ his State upon the questions involved,
and yet I cannot resist the conviction
that 10 points the way and approves the
node by which that policy may be wholly
urrerted."
Hrldges over Highways.
The case Of the City OF Charlottesville
ys -he Southern Railway Company in
v1.veI the construction Of the statute
Giving 10 railway companies the right to
CROSS any other railroad or canal, turn
Pike. or state or county road. The Code
.1ys that the work Of the railroad shall
-te $50 constructed as not 10 impair the
81 fety or impede or endanger the opera
tens Of the work TO be crossed. and that
such crossing be otherwise effected by
sal permanent and proper structures
-l fixtures as will best make safe life
M property passing upon the same, and
..u Doe satisfactory TO the company
r.1se work is TO be crossed The opin-
r says:
"To construe the statute literally would
defeat the very object which the Legisla-
tlrs had IN view in passing II, for in the
very nature Of things fl is impossible TO
construct a railroad across a highway
without 10 some extent impairing its safe
50 or impeding or endangering the passage
or transportation of persons or property
along the same. The statute must there
fore receive q reasonable construction.
such a one as would enable the railroad
company 10 exercise the power conferred,
but 10 must nj the same time be so con-
strued as not 10 deprive the public Of
their rights in the highway to any greater
extent than is necessarily implied from
the power granted. The true meaning of
The statute is. we think, that a railroad
company may construct its road across a
public highway. but IL must do so with
as little injury TO the highway as is prac-
te1lly possible. 1t must so restore the
highway that its use by the public will
not pc materially, or. at least, unneces-
aI.ly. interfered with. and so as not TO
render 10 less safe and convenient for the
pa1g e or transportation of persons or
property along the same except so far as
diminished safety and convenience are in
separable from its use by the railroad"
About the year 1850 the Charlottesville
and Rapidan Railroad Company con-
s'rlcted IT'S road from Charlottesville 10
Orange Courthouse. and I'm doing so
crossed the public road between the town
o' Charlottesville and the University Of
Virginia. The crossing not being at
grade. the railroad company made cut
..r1.s the highway and spauned the cut
FI-h an overhead bridge. The height Of
he bridge being greater than the depth
ai the cut. 10 became necessary 90 raise
Che grade OF the highway on either side
"a. the bridge. This was done by making
al in the highway for about three hum
cred yards. The highway is sixty feet
WIDE. Vf. hrfF~n over the railway IS
about f0rty-eight feet wide and the I'll
varies in width from forty-seven TO fifty
Iltr ffe.. Since the crossing was made
lAe corporate limits Of the town Of Char
'lles'iie have been extended beyond the
crossing and the highway at that point.
watch was then a public road in the
county has now become part Of the
iNtiu street OF the city Of Characteristic.
An electric street-car line runs on this
street and its track is laid south OF the
centre VI the street for the purpose, il Is
A-.a oi making room for wagons and
other vehicles 10 pass between it and the
Sidewalk ON the north side Of the street.
"lerl The street is sixty feet wide. as
u ls iu most places there is ample room
between the strcct-car track and the
southern limit Of the street for a side
Walk. but IL IS shown that there IS not
sufficient room for a sidewalk upon the
1'iifr and I'LL south Of the strcet-car
Tack
THE COURTS OPINION
The opinion says:
10 further appears by prepondcranoe
f evidence that the convenience q the
public would be greatly promoted by the
.nunuation Of the sidewalk, or pave
aelt from Delevan church along the
street where the fill and bridge are
.r.ted. The record shows that this -