Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-11-24
NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT
SUPREME COURT so HOLDS As TO
STATE HOSPITALS.
TIE EAls CASE IS REVERSED.
Mr.. Wise Declared Not 60 Have zee"
Guilty of Contemporaries WINS
r,s. IuxoIviug Tax on Ground
Rent. Decidcd-Ofhcr Opinions.


C.,e. Involving Tax on Groun'
Rent. Decidcd-Ofbcr Opinions.
Eieh, opinions were handed down IN
tho Supreme Court yesterday, several OF
them being Of more than usual Interest
The most interesting was that IN the
case OF Maia's Administrator vs.. the Di-
rcctors Of the Eastern State Hospital
from the Circuit Court Of the city OF
Richmond. The case was before the court
on a motion 70 rchear, made by Attor-
ney-Gcnoral Montague. representing the
Commonwealth Mr. Montague was not
satisfied with the decision OF the court
which refused 10 accept his argument
that the State Hospital was govern
mental institution. and as such could not
be sued by private individual any more
than the State could be sued. The court
not only granted his petition 20 rchear.
but reversed its former decision. The
opinion was written by Judge Buchanan.
The plaintiff In error. who was the
plaintiff in the court below, brought an
action OF trespass on the case TO recover
damages for the death Of his intestate'
alleged to have been caused by the negli-
eence Of the defendant. or its agents. in
recurring and permitting the intCsiate,
whilst n patient and inmate Of the defend
ants hospital for the insane, To dig ana
excavnte I'm the side OF an embankment.
the property of the defendant. without
providing props or supports 20 prevent
the overhanging earth from ialilhS upon
him.
The court holds that Eastern state
Hospital is q public corporation. engaged
I'm the exercise OF purely governmental
functions and. therefore. an arm Of the
STATE. consequently thai such corpora
ton or agency is not liable In damages
for the negligence Of any Of its Oihclals
or employees any more than the ol@'e
itself would be liable for injury occurring
10 one by reason of the negligence OF us
officials or employees.
The court further held that such IN
juries are without remedy save against
the individuals themselves, who commit
ted the negligence.
In reaching the above conclusion, the
court. of course. reyerses its former de-
cision. and holds that the Garrett ca
is not sufficiently pertinent TO be coll
trolling I'm the case at bar
Harrison, j., dissents'
A Case of Alleged Contempt.
A case Of much interest to Richmond
LAWYERS a. that Of George +. Wise VS.
the Commonwealth The Supreme Court
reverscs the Judgment Of the county
Court OF Henrico in fning MIR. Wise Tor
contempt
George r.. Wise an attorney at law,
was fined $50 for an alleged contempt oi
court by The Judge OF the County Court
OF Hcnrico. II appears that plainuil III
error had a case Commonwealth vs.
Green set for trial in that court on me
18th day of December, 1898; mat upon
that day the prisoner was arrmsneo ana
mo court ready 90 proceed, but counsel
for prisoner not putting in an appeor-
,rcr. The court waited until 1870 J.. W., at
which time Mr. Wise appeared and was
given lea-o 90 explain his absence. lie
stated shat he was unavoid0bly detained
IN the trial of case In the Police Court
OF tho city of Richmond. which called Tor
trial about l0 o'clock the same morning
aud that me- entered into it, believing tlat
IL would he concluded go time for him 20
keep his enlargement in the County court
at u O'Clock; finding out, however tu"'
ne would not be able 10 finish ms case
torucv. "a king him % explain 10 the
Judge OF The County Court the facts. Tie
then --ufucd o. the Police Court ana
nqled "a continuance of the case i'm order
that Dc might attend the County Court
but this was refused by the Police jus
ugc Plaintiff boo error again telephpAed
d the County Court. explaining his en-
breed delay finished his case as quickly
4 possible, and went TO the County
Court
Held: There Is nothing in the facts
stated % give color 10 the suspicion that
In what plaintiff I'm error did he 'nte1ded
the slightest contempt or, or dislesp-tl
TO. the lawful authority of the County
Court Having entered upon the trial cI
the case I'm the Police Court with the rca
sonable expectation that It would b. COM
pletod In time for HIM 60 keep mis- ap-
pointment a. counsel i'm the case pending
I'm the County Court, and being unable 10
procure any indulgence in the Police
Court. he would have been guilty of
far more serious offence against the To-
lice Justice than that with which he IS
charged by the County Court, Tor II IL
were an offence not TO Keep an engage
ment TO ba present and proceed with the
case set for trial with his consent
month before. II would have been a far
the Police Court 10 abandon a trial al
ready begun in that tribunal. 80" The
County Court might very properly have
pursued the one or the other OF two
courses: IL might have continued the case
to another day, or to a succeeding term;
or IL might have proceeded with the trial
in the absence OF plaintiff in error, hut
IL could not punish for n contempt OF
court when 1t is manifest that no con-
tempt OF It's authority was intended"
Judge Keith delivered the opinion of
the court reversing the judgment.
Receivers from the Railroad.
Judge Keith also wrote the opinion in
the case of MarshalIs Administrative ".
the Valley Railroad Company, involving
the right OF recovery from the railroad
company for the alleged negligence Of
the company IN keeping in repair a bridge
which IL was its duty 10 maintain.
This action was brought by Marshalis
Administrators in the Circuit Court Of
Augusta county against the Valley Rail-
road Company for the recovery of dam
ages by reason of the death Of her intes-
tate, which she alleges was caused by
the negligence OF the defendant company.
At the May term the case was tried
by a jury which rendered Il verdict i'm
favor OF the plaintiff for S2700, which.
upon motion Of the defendant. was set
aside as being contrary 20 the law ana
the evidence. At the November term the
case was again tried and a verdict rem
dered in favor of the defendant.
IL appears that there was Il bridge over
the right Of way Of the defendant com
pany which It was its duty 10 maintain
and keep In proper condition and repair
and In the performance Of this duty IL
undertook TO remove a wooden bIlns'
and replace II with an iron structure anc