Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-01-27
VICTORY FOR POSTAL.
CAN ESTABLISH TELEGRAPH LINE
ON TARMvuLLE AND PowuATAN.
SUPREME COURT RBVERSES ITSELF.
A Decision of Great importance to
Teiegrnph and Railroad Com
Poii-IiOoks-LocnI Cases Decided.


or the five opinions handed down IN the
Supreme Court OF Appeals yesterday was
that prepared by President Keith in the
case OF the Postal Telegraph Gable Com
pany va. the Farmvllle and Powhatan
Railroad Company reversing the judg-
ment OF the County Court Of Chesterfield.
The effect Of the decision is to allow
! the Postal Company TO construct and ope-
rate a telegraph line along the Farmvine
| and Powhatan Companys right Of way,
| and 10 reverse a former ruling Of the
appellate court I'm a case involving this
same principle.
The Postal Company served notice on
the Farmvile and Powhatau that it
would apply to the County Court Of Ches-
terfeld. at its November term. 1888. for
the appointment Of commissioners to as
certain and report what would be a just
compensation TO the railroad company
for the right to construct and operate q
telegraph line along its right Of way. The
notice was quashed upon the railroad
company's motion. and the case went up
ON an appeal The lower courts ruling
was I'm accordance with the decision Of
the appellate court. in the case Of Pos
tai Telegraph Company ". Norfolk and
Western Railway Company. reported IN
IS Virginia, at page go. Plaintiff i'm error
urged the Court OF Appeals TO enquire
into the correctness Of the former deci-
sion while the defendant earnestly con-
tended that the reported case was cor
rectly decided and if were not the Court
was bound TO adhere to and respect it as
an authority. After discussing the rule
of stare declsis the court says: 1--WE
have here a single judgment followed in
no other case rendered by a bare major
ity of the court, two Of the judges dis
sendng. and placing a construction upon
the statute law involved I'm IL which we
think palpably erroneous and contrary
10 public policy as tending 10 foster and
promote a monopoly"
The Court quotes sections 1851 12SS. and
1888 Of the code and cOnstrues them TO
give the telegraph company the right 70
construct its line "along and upon the
property Of the railroad. The Court does
not pass upon the measure OF damages,
but simply reverses the Judgment of the
County Court and directs il 10 enter
judgment in conformity with the views
expressed i'm the opinion.
WALKER MAY INSPECT BOOKS.
The court. in an opinion prepared by
Judge Cardwell decided the case asking
orders compelling Registrar James A.
Stone of Bristol. TO allow General James
A. Walker. congressman from the Ninth
Virginia District to inspect the Bristol
yOll-books, deciding that such inspection
must be allowed.
The cases were styled j. L. Kclar and
a. r. Hickman VS.. James A. Stone. and
James y Walker VS. James a. stone.
They were practically similar. Some time
I'M December, 1895, General James \.
Walker, who, as candidate for Con-
gIess from the Ninth District was de-
feated by Judge Rhea, the Democratic
candidate in November. applied to james
A. stone Clerk Of the Hastings Court OF
Bristol, and registrar Of Bristol Precinct.
for "a copy Of the registration and poll
books of that precinct The registrar
refused 20 permit copies of these books
TO be made, but permitted General Walker
I, aspect ne registration books lie re-
fused, however, to permit any inspection
Ol tle poh-D0OKs, which ne claimed were
sealed and filed away with the ballots.
General Walker applied 10 the supreme
Court of Appeals for writ or mdnllnus
10 require the registrar and clerk 10 luI-
nish him with copies % the registration
ard pOll-boOks of the precinct, or 10 per-
uif such copies 10 be made.
The court decided that under the pro
vision o. The statute the clerk ana regis
trar could not be required To make CO.
pits of these records. nor could he be
required by mandamus 10 permit such
copies 10 be made under his supervision
bat that the petitioners had right 10
inspet the books, and TO take notes
rurrrIr8m at reasonable times and TO a
reasonable extent. As this right was
never denied as 10 the observation-disclosures
the petition as TO these was dismissed,
but the mandamus was awarded direct
ing the clerk 10 permit an inspection of
q rfrH f'E
by counsel for the clerk i'm their brief
BOTH MUST KEEP Up GATES
Judge Keith, President. also wrote the
opinion IN the case OF the Richmond
Union Passenger Railway Company US.
he Richmond Fredericksburg and Po-
tOmac Railroad Company. The decision OF
the Circuit Court Of Richmond, from
which an appeal was taken was affirmed.
The Union Passenger Company and the
Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
Company agreed that the expense Ol
erecting gates ana keeping a Waterman
where the track of the former crosses the
track Of the latter on Broad street near
Hancock should be borne by the two
companies Jointly. IN making the con-
tract Mr. Myers acted for the Richmond
Fredericksburg and Potomac, ana Mr.
Burt. superintendent 81 the Electric Com
a.- who was 'utrr'ure1 20 Mr. Myers !
by Mr. John +. Barry, secretary and
....4cI 90 thr I..4lnuuu iuluu Pas
senger Railway Company with insuruc-
lions 'tO make any dlrdnGe menls WIN |
Myers that would be- amicable 10 both !
The above agreement was !
reached and affirmed by the appellant !
company. The point upon which the lat- |
ter relied I'm resisting the contract was |
that there was no consideration. in that |
the Electric Company had the right with |
or without its consent To cross the Rich |
mOnd. Fredericksburg ana Potomac |
tracks. authority having been given by |
the Richmond City Council The contract |
was not resisted Tor some time after the |
gates were erected, the cost OF which was !
horne bv the TWO companies IL was ar |
drmed by counsel Tor the appellant com |
panv that the erection Of gates did not |
tend to increase the safety OF passen- |
gers as the carmen relied upon the gate
j<-eU-r instead of their own vigilance.
The court holds that it can take judi
ola notice OF the fact that the tendency |
of a gate and gatckeeper is 10 promote |
safety. In conclusion, the opinion says
that "whether as 10 the inception Of the
contract, the authority Of those by whom
In was entered into. the consideration |
unon which il rested. or the amount OF
Inc recovery Of the quantum meruit |
o-hen that point in the investigation is
49,. -
-s~N--~zc->~N-Ns~--C