Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-24
TIE SUPREME COURT
Batch of Decisions Handed Down
Yesterday.
Residing OH Car Lincs-New Trial
Granted unirston, OF Henry Coun-
ty-summary.
Especial to virginlan-Pilot.)

Richmond. Va, March 23.-The Su-
preme Court of Appeals rendered a de-
cision to-day in the case of Richmond
Railway and Electric Company vs.
Brown that is of interest and import
ance to all persons residing on car lines
whether in or near Richmond, or other
cities of the State.
Brown, the defendant in error, re-
sided at Brookland Park, near Rich
mond. and on the line of the Henrico
county extension of the Richmond
Railway and Electric line. He applied
to the Circuit Court of the city of
Richmond for Il writ OF mandamus to
compel the railway company's conduct
ors to give him q second transfer to
the main line OF the company after he
mad been transferred to the Clay street
line, where it was intersected by the
ienrico line at Clay and First streets
rms had formerly been the practice,
Dut was recently discontinued, so that
when suburban residents who had been
transferred from the Henrico line to
the Clay street line wished to transfer
10 the main line they had to pay an
other fare. ~ passenger on the Clay
street line gets a transfer from that
line to any Of the cars OF the Richmond
halfway and Electric Company going
In the same direction.
The company contended that the SUI
purDan passenger was entitled to n
transfer at First aud Clay, and that
to give him another to the main line
was according him two transfers going
in the same direction. while the Rich
mond passenger had but one
Inc opinion. prepared by Judge Har-
riSOn. holds that
or transfers has nothing to do with the
case. Citizens of Henrco must enjoy
the same privileges as citizer.s of Rich
mond. When they are on the Clay
street line, or any other line of the
company, the question as to whether
,hey nave gotten of the Henrico line
is IN no way relevant, at any time.
The Circuit Court of Ricnmond de-
cided in favor of the defendant in err
ror, ana the Supreme Court simply af-
firms the decision. The company CON
tended that the lower court had no
jurisdiction, Is the wrong complained
OF by Brown was in violation of an oh
iiSation to perform n duty which an
peared from record of the court of
the county OF Henrico. The violation
OIL SUCH duty. the court holds, occurred
in Richmond
The court further holds that section
a2lS OF the Code, providing that the
jurisdiction of writs of mandamus shall
be in the Circuit Court of the county
wherein the record. or proceeding is
10 which the writ relates, has no appli
cation in this case. The opinion holds
lurther that the demurrer to the pc
ltion was properly overruled. The
grounds of demurrer were that the ne
utlon should have been brought in the
name OF an officer authorized to repre-
sent the commonwealth; that the ne
utloner failed to allege that he was n
permanent resident on Broollland Park
boulevard. or that he owned. or leased
nome there, and lastly that the
PRAYER of the petitioner is wider than
the wrong of which complaint Is made.
The court decides against the comnanv
ut every point
NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
The court orders n new trial of tho
case OF llairston VS.. the Commonwealth
from the circuit Court of Henry coun
~. liairston was convicted of al
tempted assault upon a girl of Henry
county. and his term of imnrisonnan,
fixed at eight years in the penitential
~. -
Inc case came up on appeal on tho
ground that the verdict of the i,lrv
was defective for uncertainty. The
opinion. written by Judge RELY. holds
The verdict good but awards n new
flal on the ground that the evidence
was not sufficient to convict. "The
whole evidence. taken together is OF
very doubtful and inconclusive char
acter," says the opinion"
SUMMARY.
Judge James Keith-TrimbIe VS.. Com
monwealth. Corporation Court nf
Lynchburg. Reversed.
Judge John w. Ricly-Hairston VS..
commonwealth. County Court of Hen
~ county. Reversed
Judge Geo. NJ. Harrison-Richmon
hallway and Electric COMPANY We
Brown. Circuit Court, City of Rich
mond. Affirmed.
Hurst VS.: eckie. Corporation Court
OF buena Vista. Appeal and supersc-
Surface VS.. Surface Circuit Court of
Montgomery county. Appeal and sinner.
scdeas. No bond. PEI
Atkyns d Company US. city of Rich
mono. liustings Court. CITY of Rich-
Bond $3.50 ''i''i seueas'
Grady vs.. Sulphur Mines. &c. Circuit
Court of Louisa county Writ OF error
anu supersedeas. Bond 500.
CITY of Norfolk VS.. Young ct ais Cir.
cut c Court: City of Norfolk. Appeal,
Han vs.. Caldwell Circuit Court Of
Pulaski county. Appeal and s,,norsol
IDEAS. Bond $50. Sc
Birckhear vs.. Chesapeake and Onto
Hallway Company. Circuit Court nS
Cuineper county. Writ of error refused
Miller VS.. King. Circuit Court of
Alexandria county. Appeal refused
Winfree VS.. First National RAM, AZ
Lexington. Submitted. VI
Ky the Court: Roanoke Street Rail-
Nay company vs. Hicks. trustee. Mo-
tion to amend order. Motion refused
Kimball and Fink. receivers va law.
rcnce's administrators. Petition TO re.
hear. Petition refused.
Spencer's administrator VS. Field and
Gray. Further argued by James z,
tfeld for defendants in error and T T,
JenricS for plaintiff in error. and .,,h