The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-03-16
COMMONWEALTH VS.. WADLEY,

Court of Appeals yesterday, on account
first day of the term, no cases were de-
cided.
Many important questions were consid-
cred by the court, and some of the cases
are of the greatest interest to citizens
of this city, as well as other parts of the
State.
The case of Wadley VS.. Commonwealth,
for embezzlement, and OF Morgan VS..
Commonwealth, for violation of the spe-
clal license tax law, We're among the
most interesting to the general pubic,
while the decisions in Oeters VS.. Supreme
Lodge, knights of Honor, an action on
a benefit certificate, and Metropolitan In
surance Company VS.. Ruthford, as to
warranty in insurance policies, and
Fischer VS.. Lee ct al, relating to fraudu-
lent representations and constructive no.
tice of fraud, all of which were appealed
from the courts Of this city, are OF vast
interest to both. iaymen and lawyers
The case of yashon's Executrix VS..
Vashon ct al, also appealed from the Law
and Equity Court of Richmond, involves
some interesting principles of real estate
law applicable to the construction of deeds
in which contingent remainders are
created.
The case of Carpenter Sc Co. VS.. Vir-
ginia-Carolina Chemical Co, appealed
from Norfolk, is suit for alleged breach
of contract on the part of the defendant,
in refusing to accept certain fertilizer IN
gradients which had been ordered 1roh
the plaintiff company.
There were other cases from various
parts of the State of much Importance,
brief review of which is given below:
DMBEZZLENIBNT-
Wadley VS.. Commonwealth Opinion by
Judge George NJ. Harrison.
The plaintiff in error was convicted IN
the County Court Of Wythe for alleged
enlargement Of the assets OF the
Wytheville Insurance and Banking COM
pany.
The case came up to the Supreme Court
of Appeals upon a bill of exceptions to
certain rulings Of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals held that the
motion to quash the indictment upon
the ground that it was based upon IL
legal and inadmissible evidence was
property overruled
at is the policy of the law, says
the court, Gin the interest of justice,
that this preliminary hearing should be
conducted with closed doors. This
secrecy is not only consistent with. but
essential to the nature of the institution
The sufficiency of the proof cannot be
endured into to invalidate an indlct-
ment found by a lawfully constituted
grand jury. The presumption IS that
every indictment IS found upon proper
evidence
AS to the exception to the ruling OF
the trial court in refusing TO discharge
the prisoner because four regular terms
of said court had been held after the
Indictment was found before the same
was tried, the Court of Appeals said:
"There was no error in this ruling. This
delay was caused by injunction pro-
| ceedings by the defendant In the Fed
eral Court, restraining the State Court
from proceeding with his trial. and by
this means he caused the delay which
he now seeks to profit by. The sole
object of the statute was to insure
J speedy trial. It never meant by It's
enumeraticnized exceptions, or excuses
for failure to try to exclude others of
| similar nature or In ePari Ratione, but
| only to enact, if the Commonwealth
was in default for three terms without
any of the excuses for the failure emu
merated in the statute, or such like eX-
| cuses, fairly implicable by the courts
| from the reason and spirit of the law,
the prisoner should be entitled to his
discharge
| to establish the value of certain securi-.
| ties, viz: The Cannouchee bonds, the
court held that witnesses should have
been brought forward to testify to facts
within their own knowledge. and to per-
| nit a witness to give his opinion upon
| the question at issue upon information
derived from his correspondence with
others, was violation of the most fun
damental principle Of evidence; even IN
II how l1an IN IL
Missile. 1.-The difficulty or impossi-
bility Of proving an inculpatory fact by
| lawful evidence is not foundation upon
which to rest the Introduction Of i'm
proper evidence
| It was held that the trial court also
erred in sustaining the objections by the
prosecution to certain questions by the
| defence tending to show that one Of
| the witnesses introduced by the Com
monwealth was biased and prejudiced
against the defendant This Shouid
| have been matter for the jury to de-
terminc.
| In reference to the objection by the de-
/ fence to the language Of one of the in
| structions asked by the prosecution, to-
| wit: with intention to defraud said
| company and thereby render 1t unable
| to meet its obligations" the court held
| that the liability OF the company to
meet its obligations had nothing TO 40
! with the issue before the jury 1t is
as much a crime to embezzle the funds
| of a solvent company as an insolvent
| company. We do not. see. however, that
the prisoner could have been prejudiced-
The effect of the language is rather to
Impose an additional burden Of proving
the insolvency Of the company upon the
| prosecution =
! AS to the instruction asked for by the
defence to the effect that the jury must
believe there was criminal intent TO
convert to his own use the property of
the company, the court held that If there
was evidence to support such instruction
the lower court erred in refusing 1T. In
e,nbezzlement. as in larceny, there must
be a fraudulent purpose to deprive the
! owner of his property and appropriate
the same
Judgment Of County Court reversed.
| the verdict Of the jury set aside, and
| case remanded for new trial
| VALIDITY OF, TAN FOR FISHING.
Morgan vs. Commonwealth. Opinion by
| Judge Buchanan Court divided on GER
tain points.
The plaintiff in error was indicted and
Judgment entered against him In the