The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-14
NO DAMAGES IN
THE LEAKER CASE
Supreme Court Decides in the City's
Favor,
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO WINS.
The Judgment Rendered i'll the
LongIcy Proceedings Affirmed.
Other Rulings Of the Court
Of Appeals.
CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO WINS.

The city Of Richmond VS.. Leather, on ap-
peal from the Law and Equity Court, was
by far the most important and locally in
teresting of the cases in which opinions
were handed down yesterday by the Court
of Appeals. The opinion clearly defines
the limitations Of the liability on the part
of the city for injuries sustained by rea-
son Of distractions placed upon streets or
sidewalks where building is in progress,
and it also fixes the duty and care which
must be manifested by all who pass by
such places.
The case OF Risen vs.. Chesapeake and
Ohio Railway Company, appealed from
the Circuit Court of Fluyanna was an &C
ton for damages alleged to have resulted
TO the property of the plaintiff by reason
of the diversion by the defendant company
OF the water OF the Rivanna River from
the mill of the plaintiff. The opinion pre-
sents some interesting questions as to the
proper proceedings in such cases
Long!ey w. the Commonwealth, ap-
pealed from Washington county, was de-
cided adversely TO the prisoner, who was
charged with murder, and the opinion con-
tains some important rulings in the mat
ter of evidence in criminal cases.
Iurnbull ct ais vs.. John Mann, appealed
from the Circuit Court of Petersburg,
ends long litigation in regard to the
clearly the law relating TO the presump-
ton of payment and the limitation to
deeds of trust.
The other cases. which are briefly out
lined below, contain some important rul-
ings.
OBSTRUCTION OF STREETS.
City of Richmond VS. Leaker From the
Law and Equity Court OF the city of
Richmond. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
This action was brought TO recover dam
ages for personal injuries alleged TO have
been sustained by the plaintiff in conse-
quence of the negligence of .the defendant
(p!aintiif in error in unlawfuily permitting
the sidewalk OF one of its streets 10 be
Instructed
The first error assigned is the action OF
the court in accepting as sufficient the
statement tiled by the plaintiff, in re-
Spouse to the demand of the defendant, as Il
bill of particulars of his claim. the con-
1ention being that the statement was but Il
-eiteration of the allegations of the de-
claration. and not such an itemized ac-
count of the claim as is contemplated by
section 3249 of the Code.
1t was held that the declaration in the
case gave the defendant complete notice
Of the nature and character OF the plain
tiffs claim. and that no further bill of
particulars was contemplated or required
by section 3249.
The second error assigned is the refusal
Of the court to give the instructions asked
tor oy the detenGant. which We're intended
to inform the jury % that the defendant
had the right 10 permit persons erecting
buildings TO use portion OF the streets
and sidewalks for the deposit of materials,
etc, and 81 that when such materials,
etc. are deposited III a street, and are
open and obvious, travellers or pedestrians
must observe greater care TO avoid acct
dent than would otherwise be necessary.
1t was held that these were sound propo-
sitions of law, were applicable to the case,
and that the jury should have been so in
formed.
AS to instructions No. .. L., given for
the plaintiff, it was held that it was erro-
neous, in that il limits the greater care
to be exercised under the extraordinary
circumstances to the judgment of she
plaintiff, as to the necessity for greater
care, by providing that "if tho surround
ing circumstances We're such as to arouse
the fear of the plaintiff" whereas the law
imposed upon the plaintiff. when he saw
the obstruction the duty of exercising
greater care. whether those circumstances
were sufficient to arouse his fear or not.
In regard to instruction No. 8. L., given
for the plaintiff, which was as follows:
1.-The court instructs the jury that the
burden of proving the defendant guilty of
negligence rests upon the plaintiff. and
that If the defendant seeks to relieve it
self of liability by reason Of the plaintiff
having been guilty of contributory negli-
sence. the burden of proving such rests
upon the defendant it was held that
this instruction should have concluded
with these words, 'uilless such contribu-
torv negligence was disclosed by the plain
tiff:s evidence ror could be fairly inferred
from the circumstances Judgment was
reversed.
c.hesa peake and Ohio Railway Company
rs. John ". Rson. trustee. From TIA