Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1900-03-30
COURT OF APPEALS.


In the Court of Appeals yesterday
Judge Buchanan delivered the opinion
10 the case of Dingee, Weinman & Co.
-vs. Unrue's misunderstanding. This lii.
CATION came from the Circuit Court Of
Richmond. In this case the adminis-
tratrix OF John W. Unrue brought an
action to recover damages from r. &.
Terry and NJ. Il. Dingee, partners trad
ing under the firm name OF Dingee,
Weinman & Co.. for causing the death
of the plaintiffs intestate while working
az q common lsborer 10 mine of the
defendants. There was verdict and
Judgment 10 favor of tho plaintiff for
81, $50 with interest. After discussing
several assignments OF error. in VIII Oh
the couri holds that there are none, the
last assignment of error is taken up,
which is to the refusal Of the court to
grant q new trial. The evidence IL
very voluminous and conflicting. The
court FAYE: The questions involved
were those OF negligence and cOntribu.
tory negligence. They are questions
peculiarly within the province OF the
jury, and especially where the evidence
is conflicting. The jury saw and heard
the witnesses. They found for the
plaintiff. The learned circuit Judge
who presided at the trial refused to DIS
turb their finding. Neither Can we.
since we cannot say that the evidence
lie clearly insufficient 10 support IT,"
The judgment is affirmed.
A decision is also rendered in the
defamation suit of Payne vs. Tsncil.
The former is preacher and the latter
a minister. The case Ia from the Law
and Equity Court of Richmond. The
declaration contains two counts, the
first of which Is common law count,
and sets out the words complained OF.
These include the allegation that "Tap-
Gil drives to Bowler's where Mre. Bow
Ter lived, as often as his horse goes to
the stable" "The question is," the
court says, "are these words per sc &C
tionable? Words are actionable with.
out colloquium il they consist of
clearly and unequivocally impute to the
party charged the commission Of 40 O =
tense involving mora turpitude OF
which would subject him TO an infamous
punishment"
In determining whether the langusg-
does impute q criminal oheDse, tnv
words must be construed 10 the plain
and popular sense in which the world
naturally understands them. 1t is
not necessary that they should
make the charge 10 express terms. L
is sufficient if they consist of
statement of matters which would
naturally and presumably BIZ I'LL
derstood by those who heard them, a.
charging q crime. The court, after dis.
cussiDg the words used and their pur-
pore, says it is equally clear that 1t
sulting words spoken, although they
will sustain an action for common Law
defamation, may also be declared Oh
under the statutes. But to do this the
court must satisfactorily show that it
was intended 10 be count under the
statute for insulting words, and not
count Under consideration does this,
and mus; be held to be good count
for insulting words. The judgment OF
the lower court is affirmed.
The judgment of the Hastings Court
OF Richmond was reversed 10 the writ
OF error in the case of the city of Rich
mond We. Sergeant Epps, the opinion
being handed down by Judge Rely.
This is a writ to a judgment OF the
Hastings Court upon q petition by the
sergeant OF the city for a writ OF man
damus to compel the auditor of the
city to issue warrant upon its treas
urer for certain sums of money claimed
by the sergeant to be due him as jailer
for receiving std supporting persons
confined in Jail Tor violating ordinances
of the city, or under capias pro fine
for failure to pay lines imposed for VIC
lation of said ordinances. The Hust-
ings Court awarded the writ.
The following is summary of the
other proceedings OF the court:
By Judge John W. Rely
Riverview Land Co. vs. Dance & Co. |
Noi poinliOu tOukO Sa' VI Dab ViiiS' W.
versed.
By Judge George NJ, Harrison
London Virg MIA Mining Company
vs. London OF ale. Circuit Court OF |
Buckingham county. Appeal dis
missed.
King vs. Wilson. Hastings Court |
city of Portsmouth. Affirmed.
Metropolitan Insurance Company vs.
Rutherford, Petition to rehear. Petit
tion refused; note filed.
Laurel Creek Coal Company vs..
Browning, Circuit Court of TszswelI
county. Appeal. Bond, 1000.
Willard vs, Willard. Hastings Court
city Of Roanoke. Appeal and super
sedeas. Bond, $3.50.
Newberry, &C., Va. French, &c. APP
peal and superssdeas from the Corpo-
ration Court OF Radford. Bond 800
900.
Curry We, Bell, &c. Circuit Court OF