The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-01-19
new TRIAL I'm THE
HILDEBRAND CASE
Supreme Court of Appeals Reverses
Lower Court.
BELL COMPANY VS.. CLEMENTS.
Judgment OF Circuit c. urt Of Rich
mond Reversed i'll the Case of
Wcst-End Real Estate Co. of
Norfolk Against Claiborne.

a new trial has been ordered in the
case of the Richmond Traction Company
vs. IIidebrand. which was argued before
the Supreme Court OF Appeals recently
and the verdict of the lower court set
aside.
This case has been the cause of consld-s
cradle interest here. Miss Mary Hide
brand was injured seriously by car OF
the Richmond Traction Company, near
lakewood On the trial OF the cause she
was given a verdict of S12.250
The: Supreme Court yesterday reversed
the Judgment. set the verdict aside and re-
manded the cause for a new trial, with
leave to the plaintiff to file an amended
declaration.
This was an action in trespass on the
case brought by Mary B. Hilderbrand to
recover DANA ges for an injury alleged to
have been sustained by her in consequence
OF the careless. negligent, and reckless
conduct of the plaintiff in error in run
ming it's electric cars over a certain high
way from the city of Richmond to Oak
wood cemetery.
After reversing the case upon the in
structions. the court considers the decla-
ration, which repeatedly states that plain
tiff was struck by defendants car while
she was on its track, upon which she had
Just stepped The court holds that plain
tiff was guilty of negligence in stepping
Immediately in front of a rapidly moving
car, the consequences of which could not
be avoided by the utmost care on the part
of the defendant.
THE CLEMENTS CASE.
An opinion was also rendered in the
case of the Southern Bell Telephone and
Telegraph Company VS.. Clements, Law
and Equity Court of Richmond. Glenn
ents. an employe. a lineman brought suit
to recover damages for injuries, and YER
dict was received in his favor. Judgment
affirmed.
Another opinion was rendered in the
case of the West-EnG Real Estate Com
pany of Norfolk VS.. Fl. W. Claiborne.
This case was appealed from the Circuit
Court of the city of Richmond. The op.n-
ion states that in September. $780, Gill
liam and others procured an option for
sixty days on q tract of land of sixty
acres, situated in Norfolk, from one Hill
lard, the price paid being $4,000. They
afterward associated themselves with the
owners OF other tracts, all of which lands
were sold to q joint stock company. with
capital stock Of not less than S1I5,O 600.
or more than 100000. H. w. Claiborne
became a subscriber for twenty shares on
being assured that there We're no pro-
moters' interests. but later became sus-
piciouS. and later on refused to pay the
balance alleged to be due on his stock.
and. in default of which. suit was insti-
tuted. In this suit the defendant pleaded
non assumpst. the statute of limitations
and four other special pleas. The YER
dict was in favor of Claiborne. but is re-
versed
SUMMARY DECISIONS.
Judge James Keith. p. West End Real
Estate Company. of Norfolk, vs. CIai-
borne. Circuit Court city of Richmond.
Reversed.
Danville Street Car Co. VS.. Watkins. Cor
poration Court of Danville- Reversed
Southern Bell and Telegraph Co. VS.
! Clemens. Law and Equity Court city of
Richmond. Affirmed.
Judge John w. Riley. Route VS.. Dain-
gerfeld. Circuit Court Of Essex county
Reversed.
James VS.. City CO Williamsburg. Cir
cult Court of the city OF Williamsburg
and the county of James city. Affirmed
Judge r. Fl. Ca:dwell. NIcConville VS..
National Valley Bank, of Staunton. Cor
poration Court city of Lynchburg Re
versed.
Brown rs. Commonwealth County Court
Of Henrico county. Reversed.
Judge John A. Buchanan. City OF Nor
folk Us. Young and ais Circuit Court
city of Norfolk Affirmed
Conradsadmin istrator VS.. Fuller &C.
Circuit Court city of Danville. Re
versed.
Judge .iccrS NJ. Harrison. Ricfmond
Traction Co. vs.. Hilderbrand Circuit
Court Of Henrico county. Reversed.
Buck VS.. Gr%rantors Liability. &c. Co
and Dofeld. VS.. Same. Circuit Coourt
city of Richmond. Affirmed.
Virginia and North Carolina Wheel
Go. vs.. Challlley; further argued by
Frank W. Christian for plaintiff in error,
and Edgar Allan, Jr.. and r. T. Thorp
for defendant in error and submitted.