The Washington weekly post. (Washington, D.C.) 1878-1916, 1899-09-19
VIRGINIA APPEALS COURT.
Decisions Handed Down by Presiding
Judges-CAses Argued and Submitted.

] Sptclel 10 Inc fOSt-
/ Staunton, Va, Sept. H.-This was opin-
/ ion day in the Supreme Court of Appeals
i, OF Virginia, in session here. The opinions
/ rendered were as, follows:
| BY Judge John ". Rely. Mineral De-
4 velopment Company VS.. James, Circuit
( Court of Wise County; affirmed.
Crockett ct al VS. Woods ct al, Corpo-
ration Court of Bristol; reversed.
Mead VS.. Campbell. trustee, Circuit
Court Of Bedford County; affirmed
Wharton VS.. Campbell, trustee, Circuit
Court of Bedford COUNTY: affirmed
By Judge r. II. Cardwell, City of Roa-
noke vs. Shull, Circuit Court city of Roa-
noke; affirmed.
BY Judge John A. Buchanan, Alsop,
Mosby & Co. VS.. Catlett & Jenkins, Cir
| cult Court of Tazewell County; affirmed.
Barnes VS.. Morrison, Hastings Court,
City OF Roanoke; reversed.
Kent VS.. Kent Circuit Court of Wythe
County; affirmed.
By Judge George NJ. Harrison, Beale &
Co. VS.. Hall. receiver, Hastings Court
city of Roanoke; reversed.
The Douglas Company VS.. the Common
| wealth. Circuit Court OF Smyth County;
affirmed
OIner orders entered were.
Land VS.. Shipp, Circuit Court of Prin-
cess Anne County; appeal and superse-
IDEAS; bond, 500.
Paynes executors VS.. Huffman. Circuit
Court of Giles County; appeal and super
sedeas; bond, $50.
Nelson vs.. TriDlett. Circuit Court Of
Culpeper County; appeal and supersedeas;
bond. 800.
vau NC Oo,,,o C,;xo.t. r.. -. ~, q,
mond; writ of error and supersedeas;
bond 5000.
Stuart VS.. Pennis, petition to rehear;
petition refused
The case of Wisecaryer VS.. Wisecarver
from the twelfth circuit, was further ar
gued and submitted by Richard +. Byrd
and w. Roy Stephenson.
From the same circuit, Ryman vs. Ry-
man, executors, was continued to the
next term, the record not being printed.
as was also Rollers, administrator. VS..
Pitman, &c, from the thirteenth circuit.
and for the same reason.
Robinson VS.. Moses was fully argued
and OYerholt VS.. Old Dominion Manu-
featuring Company was continued to the
next term.
The town of Harrisonburg VS.. Cen John
T. Roller was argued in part. further ar
gument 10 be resumed tomorrow. after
which Ayers VS.. Hfte will be taken up
The court is now considering causes com
Ing from the thirteenth circuit
staunton, Va, Sept. l5.-This was ao-
days business of the Supreme Court of
Appeals of Virginia:
The case of the town OF Harrfsonburg
against Gen. John E Roller was sub
m!tted, the argument thereof having been
concluded
r. NJ. Ayers against Hite; argued and
submitted.
Bridgewater Rolling Mills COMPANY
against StrOugh Guard. &c: argued and
submitted.
Houcks, administrator, against Ker-
foots, administrator; continued.
Shacklett against Roller; argued In
part; further hearing set for Monday. the
next day OF meeting.
The court will remain in session here
about two weeks longer.
staunton. Va. Sept 13.-The Supreme
Court of Appeals met here TODAY and
heard the following cases:
Norfolk and Western Railway VS. Mar
pole. argument completed and case sub
mtted.
Kimball and Fink, receivers Of the Nor
folk and Western Railroad, vs.. b. Z. Bor-
den. argued and submitted
Fitzmayer and others VS. Holsinger.
continued until next term
Liskey VS.. Pitmans, administrator, con-
tinued.
T. J. Lovett VS.. Emma NJ. Perry, contin-
ued
WisecarYer VS.. Wisecaryer, argued and
adjourned until Tomorrow
Robinson vs. Moses, from the Augusta
circuit, will be heard next in order,