The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-06-17
DECISION OF
SUI RENE COURT
A Suit Against the Prison Association
Overruled.
RIGHT OF: RIPARIAN OWNERS.
,.uch ycxed Question Very Clearly
set Fortll-Jud sc Cardwcll Makes an
Exposition of Law Concerning
RAILROADS Frightening Horses.
RIGHT OF: RIPARIAN OWNERS.

wYTHEYILLE, VA, June 16.-specia.-
The following are some OF the lilost ~
taut decisions handed down by me
supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia this
week:
r,ravett VS.. Prison Associa ton Of Virginia
The plaintiff. who was the owner Oh d
tract of land in the county OF heir-co,
l1pon which he conducts the dairy ana
butter business, brought an action AGAINST se
the Prison Association, charging that II
had polluted the water of q certain stream
1i6w,ne through his property by the cree
ton of wash-tubs, bath-tubs, urlnals ana
closets. the discharge from winch was
turned into the said stream
THE Prison Association demurred to ms
declaration, and this demurrer was sus-
tanned by the Circuit Court OF Henrlco
county.
The opinion of the court. rendered by
Judge Keith, holds that the demurrer 1,l
should have been overruled. 1t says that
the Prison Association OF Virginia is IN
no sense a public corporation, but that
it is subject to ali the responsibilities
imposed by law upon other corporate
bodies.'' Proceeding, the opinion, with
great clearness, defines the rights OF f4pa-
rian owners in regard TO the puutles OIL
streams flowing by their property ihey
have the right to the water in its natural
purity. but this term must be understood
in a comparative sense impurities nee
essarily impaired TO the water by reason
of drainage of the adjacent land, roads,
Sc. are not a violation of this right
But any use that materially fouls and
adulterateS the water, or the deposit or
discharge therein OF amy filthy or opnoH-
ious substance that SO far affects the
water as TO impair il for the ordinary pur-
poses of life, is Il violation OF this right,
for which the lower riparian proprietor
is entitled to redress
The case is distinguished from those of
the pollution of streams by aciduiated
water pumped from mines, and the Ques-
ton is left open whether in the latter CLASS
of cases the right of the Individual would
Weld to the public interest in the develop
lnent of the natural resources of the
country, except upon payment Of proper
compensation.
Washington Alexandria and MOUNT Yer
non Railway Company VS.. City Council
of Alexandria.
The City Council of Alexandria adopted
an ordinance requiring the Washington,
Alexandria and Mount Vernon Halfway
company to change its rails along King
Street in said city to a rail prescribed in
said ordinance, and, upon lis refusal so
to do. prayed for and obtained from the
Circuit Court of Alexandria q mandamus
compelling its compliance with the ordi-
nance. This, the opinion of Judge keith
says was properly granted, NOTWITHSTANDING
ing that the jury, upon certain issues
framed in the case, found that there was
no necessity for the change.
Power had been conferred upon the City
Council to regulate the use of its streets,
and it appearing that there was no fraud
in the passage of the ordinance, and that
the city did not act capriciously, but in
accordance with what it deemed best to
al u
adopted suitable rail, the railway COM
pany did MOI overcome the presumption
in favor Of the reasonableness of the ordi-
nance which it must obey.
Board of Supervisors OF Norfolk County
VS.. Cox.
This opinion was rendered by Jud'ge John
w RELY, and arises out of condemua-
ton proceedings instituted by the super
visors of Norfolk county against Cox for
the condemnation of a lot of land in the
city of Portsmouth adjacent to the court
house lot, for the purpose of charging
its Clerks Office. The Hastings Court
dismissed the proceedings, upon the
ground that there was no authority to
condemn land situated in a city for the
purposes of charging the clerk office of
a county.
The opinion holds that the statutes
authorizing the purchase and condemns
confne the selection by the Board of
Supervisors to land within any specified
area or to any particular locality, so that
it is located within the limits Of the county.
1t further holds that The court of the
city has jurisdiction over the locality,
and not the court Of a county, and that
the application for the condemnation OF
the lot was improperly dismissed.
Southern Railway Company VS.. Cooper.
The opinion, delivered by Judge Card
well. is valuable, in that it is an exposition
of the law concerning the duties of rail-
way companies in ragard to frightening
horses near crossings and tracks.
Cooper was injured by his horses ia king
fright from a locomotive of the Southern
Railway Company near crossing IN the
city of Danville. The opinion holds that
a railroad company is not liable for 1n1u-
ries received from horses becoming fright
ened upon a highway at T he nsSre sl g !
of a train. or the noises incident to tle
running of the train and the operation
of the road, and that no duty rests s. upon ,
| a railroad company to sound whistles OF
all nnf.SanSS nsalxE TO preYenl