The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-18
Screw Worms and Ticks :.

tho 7,roprictors of enclosed lands and
the owners of stock that is allowed to
run at large. and can. therefore, take
from every man his remedy for tres
pass by cattle, unless he enclose his lands
with u lawful fence, without violating
any right guaranteed by the constitution
Of the Ssate or the United States"
The position taken by the appellant
that he has a right. under the fence law.
10 turn his cattle in and upon his neigh
bor's premises, where the latter has failed
to enclose his land with 4 lawful fence.
was held to be wholly without merit.
The decision Of the lower court was
affirmed.
UNREASONABLE DELAY.
Covinston VS.. Griffin's Administrator.
Opinion by Judge James Keith. P.
This was q case appealed from the
Circuit Court for Culpeper county, where
judgment had been obtained upon u
suit brought to enforce the collection of
a debt alleged to be due on bond.
The facts in the case, briefly stated,
are as follows: Zachary Griffin died in
1852, leaving Il WILL which was admitted
10 probate in June of that year James
N. Griffin one of his sons, qualified as
his executor. and in 1854 attempted an
cx parte settlement OF his accounts before
u commissioner, and proof of debts
against the estate being called for, Thos.
l. Griffin, brother of the executor, APP
peared and claimed that his father was
indebted TO him by bond, a copy of which
was filed before the commissioners, IN
the sum of 50. 600
Tor some reason the OK parte settlement
was not made IN 1856 James N. Griffin
fled q bill in his own right and as
executor of his father. A reference vas
made to a commissioner to settle the
executoral accounts and ascertain the
debts and in 1860 report was filed
showing 4 balance due by the executor of
$i.26633 and two debts against the es-
tate-one to Amy Hall amounting, prin-
cipal and interest. to Sti1.Sl. and the
other due by bond to Thomas !. Griffin
amounting. principal and interest. to
$3,4i7.iS Thomas T. Griffin died in 1857
and James NJ. Griffin qualified as one of
the administrators of his estate, SO that
he became the administrator of the
creditor at the same time he was eXecu-
tor of Zachary Griffin. the debtor. The
report of the commissioner was excepted
to- but the exceptions do not appear in
the record and were never passed upon,
and the report remained uncontirmed.
No further action seems to have been
taken in the case until 1897. when a paper
termed a supplemental bill and bill OF
revivor' was filed. In the mean time:
nearly all the original parties to the suit
were GSau. Inc executor ol INC uSoIoi
and administrator of the creditor had
died some time prior to 1897, and his ad-
,nilistrator was not made party to
this proceeding.
The bill does not set up any circum-
stance in any way explanatory of the
failure to prosecute the original suit for
the settlement Of the estate Of Zachary
Griffin. 1t merely "ecitea the existence
of the debt from Zachary. the father, TO
I that IL n
paid. and that the only asset for its pay
ment is Il, small tract of land in the pos
session of Thomas H. CovNgton, who
holds it under the will Of James NJ.
Griffin.
Covin-ton answered the bill. denying
the existence of the debt, averrinS INSULT
Gent proof and Iaiming that it had been
paid off.
In reviewing the case the court said:
I'VE are of opinion that the record
shows that Zachary Griffin executed the
bond in controversy; also, that the de-
cree entered in the original suit stopped
the running OF the statute OF limitations
as 10 all the debts due by Zachary
Griffin. and there is much in ithe case
TO repel the presumption Of payment
arising from lapse Of time but that
nothing can call forth a court of chan
Gerry into activity but conscience, good
faith. and reasonable diligence. When
these are lacking the court is passive.
Laches and neglect are always d!scoun-
tenanced, and, therefore. from the be-
ginning of this jurisdiction there was al
ways a limitation of suit in this court.
Reasonable diligence is as essential ito
the granting OF relief in equity as con-
science and good faith. 1t certainly can
not be said that there has been reason
able diligence in this case, hence we are
OF opinion that tho decree OF the Circuit
Court should lie reversed and the sup
Elemental bill dismissed
DOCTRINE OF SEGREGATION.
Male VS. Parrish Ell ais. Opinion by
Judge John W. Rely.
This is a case involving the title OF GER
tain land, and was appealed from the
Circuit Court of Culpeper county.
II 1873 Andrew keyser purchased tract
of land under the decree of the Circuit
Court of said county. entered in the case
OF Bickers VS.. Parrish. pending therein,
and made 4 cash payment OF one-thlrd,
executing writing binding himself 10
convey the said land to his daughter,
Saliie ]. Nalle, the wife of Joseph Male.
when the land was paid for, upon the
condition that she pay the bonds given
for the deferred payments.
Jas. z. Thomas and Lucy Il. Thomas.
his wife, the latter being the sister of
Joseph Male. We're put in possession of
the land When the last bona fell due,
Joseph Male having paid the first two
bonds, he agreed TO convey the land or
have 1t conveyed to his sister, provided
she would pay the last bond. In order
TO raise the money for this purpose she
and her husband sold los "a acres of the
land to James M. Shadrach, who paid to
Latham. commissioner OF the court. the
amount OF the last bond, and the balance
of the purchase money he paid to Thomas
for the land sold to him by Thomas and
wife, and they. in 1878, made deed to
him fer same.
Latham receipted the bond. showing
payment by Shadrach for Thomas, trans
1nitted it to Male and wife, and made
deed to Mrs. Male for the land bought
by Keyser. her father. Male and wife,
not being aware that Commissioner Lath-
EN- had made deed to the latter for
the land bought by keyser and filed it
in the clerks office, in 1896 brought suit
in the Circuit Court of CulIyeper county
TO obtain q conveyance thereof. In this
suit the widow and heirs of Shadrach
flied their petition to have the title 20