Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-24
s. Several a I. portant Decisions Hand
ed Dl1tow v I Y! i. Richmond Yesterday
a ProcsdensinC ases OF Contemurpt Sc,
The couri lseverses one OF I,soun
eeisl ens-An Interesting Opinion
sCnscs,
} {special to- Virginian-Pi1ot.1

ginia Supreme Court to-day decision
was handed down which will prove Of
Interest to lawyers everywhere, as set
ting a precedent.rs The decision was
rendered on writ of error in an ap-
peal from the Judge OF the Henrico
County Court, who fined Mr.. George q.
Wise, a well known attorney of this
city, $40 for contempt Of court.
The facts are that Mr.. Wise was
counsel in a case that was set for hear
Ing on the date mentioned but being
engaged in case In the Police Court
OF Richmond that consumed more time
than he anticipated, Mr.. Wise was UNI
< aoie TO reach the County Court at the
nour Tor which the case was set. He so
informed the County Court and asked
TOT o slight delay The Police Court
case was. concluded and when Mr.. Wise
IS repaired to the County Court and gave
his reasons for being late, he was fined
S20 for contempt. An appeal was taken
ana the case went to the Supreme
y Court. The opinion is as follows:
we are Of opinion that the facts GER
tined do not warrant the Judgment.
There Is nothing In the facts stated to
5 give color to the suspicion that in what
ne did plai9tiM In error Intended the
s slightest contempt Of, or disrespect TO
the lawfulS authority of the County
+ Court. It is true that the case was
" Ilxed for trial in the County Court with
Z MS consent and 1t is true that he sub
sequently made an engagement which
compelled him to make a choice between
! duties both Of which he could not at
the same time perform; but it appears
That he. in good faith, entered upon the
trial of the case in the Police Court in
the reasonable expec tauon that it would
be completed in time to enable him to
4 keep his appointment as counsel In the
Henrico.
Having entered upon the trial Of the
case in the Police Court with this rea-
sonable expectation and being unable
to procure any Indulgence in that court
ne would have been guilty Of a more
serious offence-if offence 1t be-against
the Police Justice than that with which
ne is charged by the County Court, for
Z, II 1t were an offence not to keep an en-
gagement to be present and proceed
with the case set for trial with his con-
sent month before, 1t would have been
a far more serious violation of his duty
to his client and to the Police Court to
abandon a trial already begun in that
tribunal.
He was, therefore, placed in the posi-
4 ton, II the judgment Of the County
& Court be sound, Of being punished for
an election between inconsistent duties
Whatever his choice might have been.
The whole tenor and spirit or his con-
duct when he found himself thus en-
barrassed Is marked not by disposition
to be guilty of contempt OF jurisdicf.
ton of any court, but discloscs a eau
tous and respectful consideration for
each Of them.
Another case Of considerable import
ance was that of NIaia's administrator
vs. the Eastern State Hospital. The
decision establishes that the public cor
porations of the State, which ARE en-
gagged in the exercise or administration
@Eof Governmental functions. are not liza
BILE for negligence of officials or en-
pioyes Of such Institutions
Meia. an inmate OF the hospital, was
killed by the caving in of q track while
engaged In making excavations in the
hospital. His administrators sued the
hospital.
The case was decided once before by
the Supreme Court in Maia's favor but
the Attorney General filed petition for
= re-hearing, which to-day eventuated
In that court reversing itself-one of
the rare instances Of the kind in the
history Of the court
AN INTERESTING OPINION.
An interesting opinion was also rem
dered In the case of Willis executors
VS.. the Commonwealth, an appeal from
mond.
The case was whether or not the
Commonwealth could tax ground rents
as real estate, the executors OF Willis
appealing from an adverse decision of
the Hastings Court
A rent charge OF ground rent Is held
TO be real estate and subject to all Its
incidents. 1t descends on the death OF
the owner to his heir or his devisee. and
Is subject to curtesy and-dower.
therefore, as such rents are in law
realty and not personality, the entry Of
the ground rents In controversy upon
the personal property book by the COM
missioner OF revenue as a charge
against the executors Of the decedent,
II liable to taxation, was improper,
and should have been stricken there
from under The motion OF the plaintiff
in error.
heSanestion then arises whether the
ground rents nre under the law taxa
Die as real estate, and this depends
upon the further inquiry whether the
Legislature has made the necessary
p provision for their assessment for the
purposes rof taxation.
Whether the omission was intentional
or unintentional. the result is the
same. It is not thu province or within
the power OF the court to make the
assessment. No property can be as
-scssed with taxes until the Legisla-
ture has made proper provisions for
this purpose.
The opinion, which is by Judge Riley.
as says the Hastings Court erred in re-
4 fusing to exonerate the plaintiff and
81 will enter such Judgment as 1t should
7 have entered s7S.