Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-11-08
COURT DECISIONS.
.DIGESTED BY w. 3. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRs MAN PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of interest to
Our People.

september n, 1860.
THERE CAN BE NO APPEAL To-
THE CIRCUIT COURT FROM THE
ACTION OF A CORPORATION
COURT IN THE MATTER OF
GRANTING LIQUOR LICENSES.
AND SECTION OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 6, 1890, ALLOWING SUCH
AN APPEAL. IS UNCONSTITU-
TIONAL AND VOID.
The following order was entered in
the case, the court delivering no opin-
ion:
This day came again the parties by
counsel and the Court having mature
~ considered the petition aforesaid
and the arguments of counsel, is of
opinion that section Ave of an act up
proved March 6, 1890, as amended by
an act passed March Z. 1900. "prescrib-
Ing the mode of obtaining license to
sell wine, ardent spirits, malt liquors,
or any mixture thereof" confers upon
the Circuit Courts power to entertain
an appeal from and to review the ac-
ton of Corporation and Hastings
Courts In respect to granting or. re-
fusing such licenses; and being further
OF opinion that by virtue of section II
of article of the Constitution Of this
commonwealth, Corporation and Hus-
Jurisdiction which may be given by
law to the Circuit Courts, and are
therefore OF coordinate dignity with
the Circuit Courts, and being further
OF opinion that the act aforesaid, in so
far as 1t undertakes to confer appellate
power upon the Circuit Court by ap-
peal, writ of error or supersedeaS to
review an action of the Corporation or
Hustings Courts, is, for the reasons
aforesaid. null and void, it is there
fore ad1udged and ordered that n writ
of prohibition be awarded according to
the prayer of said petition command
ing the defendants TO proceed no fur
ther In the Circuit Court of the City
OF Newport News upon the appeal
granted in the Corporation Court OF
the CITY of Newport News to said Cir
cult Court in the matter of the applica-
tlon or Charles Delaney for a license
10 sell wine. ardent spirits, malt Ii
iiors, or any mixture thereof; and 1t
Is further ad5udged and ordered that
the service OF an office copy of this
order upon the said defendants shall
nave the same force and effect as the
execution upon them of a writ of pro-
hibitlon issued in pursuance hereof.
AND 1t is further adjudged and order
ed that the plaintiff recover against
the defendant. excent the said ]. w.
~ blackstone. Judge as aforesaid,
their costs by them expended in the
prosecution of this proceeding.
Which Is ordered to be certified to
th> said Circuit Court Of the City OF
Newport News.
T1ESLER V. TOWN OF NORWICH.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
October 4, 1900.
IT is NOT THE DUTY OF A ..IUNIC-
IPAL CORPORATION TO REMOVE
CARRIAGE BLOCK FROM A
HIGHWAY UNLESS ITS SIZE.
LOCATION AND SURROUNDING
WE'RE SUCH AS TO OBSTRUCT
THE PUBLIC IN THE USE OF
THE HIGHWAY.
This was an action for injuries sus-
tanned by the plaintiff from stepping
on an Icy carriage block in the street,
near the sidewalk. From n Judgment
1or PLAINTIFF the town appealed.
The court says:
The duty of town to remove pos
Sible instructions from highway is
modified by rights pertaining to adj
Joining proprietors and to the public
In the use of the way. Every adjoin-
ing proprietor has right of access to
the travelled part or the highway. If
separated from the driveway by side
walk he has right OF access with his
carriage across the walk, and, if-eon--
venient to enter his carriage at the
driveway. he may use stepping stone
or carriage block for that purpose,
provided this can be done without un-
reasonably obstructing or endangering
public travel. So carriage block may
properly be set up before a public place
for the use of the general public. a
slight possible obstruction must be en-
dured for the sake of the general con-
venience in using the way. Towns are
not made insurers of safe travel, and
their duty in providing a sufficiently
safe highway is necessarily affected by
the special rights of adjoining proprie-
tors, as we'll as by beneficial results to
the travelling public ms whole. and
by the necessities of business.
In the present case 1t was not the
duty of the town to remove the car
riage block, unless it's size. location
surroundings, ETC., were such that, in
view of the adjoining proprietors
rights, 1t unreasonably obstructed or
endangered the public in the use of the
walk, whereas If stone of the same
size we're on the walk without any
reason or excuse. il might be the duty
Of the town to cause its removal. The
charge does not make this distinction
clear While it may be understandable
as far as it goes. 1t does not go far
enough. Indeed, upon the admitted
facts and testimony of the plaintiff.
as they appear in the record, the trial
Judge might have been justified. while
distinctly submitting all questions of
fact to the jurv in expressing his own
opinion that the weight of the testi-
mony showed that this carriage block
did not unreasonable obstruct or en-
danger public travel. Reversed.
High grade underwear and hosiery.
RUDOLPH & WALLACE
1913 Main Street.