The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-14
cirqu1t Court Of rluvanna county

Opinion by Judge hlegar.
John W. Rison, tlstee, holding the
legal title to certai mill property on
the Rivanna river, EuSat an action OF
trespaSs on the case,l the Circuit Court
OF FluvSnna county,against the Chasa-
peahe and Ohio Railvy Company, claim
ing damages for Il diversion CT the
water from the miland for failure Of
the company to supp water to the mill.
He recovered i Verdi ma judgment, and
the case was taken ION Il writ of error.
The case involves lie consideration OF
the rights and agreeents by the James
River and kanawha 1mpany, which first
obtained the "Harterslnd privileges, and
through which thepresent defendant
company has acquire its interests.
The case WIS nc decidel uJon it,
merits but was reverb and remanded for
new trial upon certn rulings i'll refer
ence to the sutficieD of the pleadinys,
the most Interestingly which was while
it has been held by his court not to be
error 10 reject spial pleas alleging
matter which couldoe given under the
general -ssue, no ee has been found
which was reverse because such pleas
were admitted.
The decision also }ntains some inter-
est!nS points as to t effect of the plea
of a judgment in auher suit as an es-
toppel.
CRIMINAL2RACTIC
Longley VS.. the Co,ronwealtf. From the
Circuit Court OF Washington county.
Opinion by Judge hrrison.
The plaintiff in err was convicted of
murder i'll the secot degree and SEN
fenced. l1otion for a ew trial was over
RULED by the County turt, and a writ Of
error refused by the Circuit Court OF
Washington county, fan which a writ Of
error vas awarded bone of the Judges
of the Court of Appea
The court held thauhe assignment of
error that the answer by Juror who
was icing examined olhis voir dire as 10
his competency, was Ut we'll taken In
orde' to have the actiC of the trial court.
in regard to the admison of the answers
of jurors as we'll as illnesses, reviewed
by an appellate cour the record must
stnW what the partysxpected to prove
ard its materiality mt be made clear.
The court also overrnd the assignment,
Gaining it was erroro permit the jury
% retire TO "consultOf their verdict
without having an offer of the court in
charge of them, holQg that they are
constructiVely in cOurwhen constructing
their verdict, and leir deliberations
should DE as free fronlhe presence Of the
officer as from others.
The exceptions in reird to the instruc-
tons granted by the tai court were also
decided adversely to .e prisoner The
judgment OF the lower ourt was affirmed.
PRESUMPTION c PAYMENT.
Bette j. TUrnoull ct US. John Mann.
from the Circuit Ccrt of Petersburg.
opinion by Judge Phgar
IN January, 1853, Joh Jarratt and John
cole executed a deed trust conveying
he Jaratt property Persburg) to secure
hree purchase notes y John Cole. the
asst CT which fell due IL January l. 1861.
ana winch Were held the receivers, of
the circuit Court, of etersour. in the
SUIT or Jarratt vs.. Hathorne, to which
suit the plaintiffs in rror. then under
age, We're parties. TIL first two notes
were PAID and the reca-ers were by de-
cree OF June s, 1850, direed to paw amount
coilecte0 and deliver IL unpaid notes to
" III. lurnou!i, who US authorized TO
coilect IL. lie gave a md naming him
sell ShaFies Turnbull, go. w. Goodwin
ana Three others as otsors. which vas
signed by all except Ch-les Turn5ull and
Geo. W. GOODWIN. WasacceDted by The
clerk ind certified as cling satisfactory
bona. me receiver corDlied as directed
ana us report was confined by decree oif
November, 1880 Nothing more was done
IN the SUIT until 1870. hen it was dis
mlsset under the seven ears rule.
Inc property by surry conveya ny:es
passe" 20 John Mann, NO, in November.
1899, eve notice that hevould move the
court direct the lienof said deed az
trust De released. Ta court directed
Lne tetdse and discharge hereupon Mrs
luilloH anr Mrs. Goowyn. who held
equlols unSer the deed it could be en- |
io'ceu aH''fe7 and obtaied writ of error |
and socrsedeas.
Ilel PRINCIPAL relianctis on the c,a;,, |
that ae bond given by William Tur. h,,ll
ct al is invalid, therefte he corId M. |
collec'the note, and as tare was no hand
10 reeve the money, Tn presumption Of |
paEmat Is rebutted.
ihe-ourt of Appeals hid that the rierbt
10 elprce The deed Of tlst is barred nv
III assumption elf paynnt which arises
iu''i,i nc idpse OF twent. years from the
ua'e ne ueot became duGnless that pre-
sehlnoi Is rcbutted, with was tot done
itl oal OF this PRESUMPTION, says the
Luz rll,o - NOT affected byhe fact that the
10 '.ile, acts. 1S97'S S16. provided a
- limitations foitrust deeds
JaShent IS affirmed.
RELIC OF BOR DAYS.
'hnuihsham vs.. The nena Vista I'M
-. s;!iett Company c ais From the
court of Buen; Vista. Opinion
Judge Keith, P.
ttts was an appeal frol the decree of
to"ef court. contirling a commits
$40 s. report in relatiolof the title of
TFtlht!H III error to certn lands Of the
s iht. company he ha bought at tax
ana ascertaining Is indebtedness
p waste alleged to haveoeen committed
= ~, eiie property in exces OF the amount
mr., Ike taxes paid by him pon same.
-, court of Appeals affms the decree.
.iiu nolds that the evidtce abundantly
uslHled the finding OF III commissioner.