The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-22
ONL FINAL ORDERS
BE APPEALED FROM
The Supreme Court So Decides in a
Henrico Case.
REvERsEs TO, LAND GRABBERs.
Decisions Against Them in Two Cases..
New Trial for Davis, Convicted
Of Poisoning Well.
Other Opinions.
The Supreme Court So Decides in a.
REVERsEs TO. LAND GRABBERs.

One of the most interesting decisions
rendered by the Supreme Court Of APP
peals yesterday, from the professional
viewpoint, was that in the case of the
Richmond. Fredericksburg and Potomac
Railroad Company VS.. johnson, etc; ap-
pealed from the Circuit Court of Henrico
county and reversed, in which the ques-
ton of the right of appeal from inter
1ocutory orders OF courts was decided ad-
Sersely.
The Land Grabbers'' got some adverse
decisions in the cases Of Baker VS..
briggs and Baker VS.. Buckner, appealed
from the Circuit Court of Culpeper county,
(which involved the consideration of the
proper practice and legal requirements OF
the statutes relating to the sales OF lands
for delinquent taxes.
The case of Davis rs. The Common
wealth. appealed from the Circuit Court Of
Eauuuier county, and remanded, presents
some interesting points as TO the language
of indictments, and the rights Of the wife
to testify in behalf Of her husband IN
cases Of perjury
Horton VS.. The Commonwealth, appeal
ed from the Circuit Court of Russell
county, and affirmed. contains some vaIu-
able points as to instructions IN crlmlnal
cases, and as to the weight to be gwen 10
evidence.
y D
pealed from the Circuit Court of Franklin
county, and affirmed, involves the ques-
ton of the rights of one creditor to plead
the statute, of limitation against another
creditor in a suit to enforce judgment
.ens against the property of the debtor.
AS TO what constitutes legal notice of
sale of real estate, see Wilson vs.. Wall,
appealed from the Circuit Court Oh CUM
berland county, and affirmed.
Appeal From Final Orders.
Richmond, fredericksburg and Potomac
Railroad Company Us. Johnson ct ais
From the Circuit Court of Henrico
county. Opinion by Judge Harrison.
This is a proceeding in the County
Court of Henrico to establish public
road The contemplated road lay across
the railway track Of the plaintiff i'll error,
and in response to a summons to show
cause The railroad company appeared
and objected to the establishment OF the
road The court after hearing evidence,
deemed it necessary to have further in
formation and appointed commission
to ascertain a just compensation to the
company. From this order an appeal was
taken by the company to the Circuit Court
The Circuit Court overruled motion
made by the defendant in error 10 dis
miss the appeal as improvidentiy brought.
This action is up for review.
The Court of Appeals held that the
order of the County Court, appointing
the commissioners, was not final order
and that it is only from final orders that
the statute providing TO: appeals ap-
plies. Section 3453, when read i'll con-
nection with the general law touching
appeals found in section 1854, leaves no
dorbt that the order mentioned in sec
ton 1888 is a final order.
Inasmuch as the action of .he Circuit
Court secures the same result that would
have been accomplished by disnissing
the appeal, that order was disturbed and
the appeal to this court was dismissed
as improvidently brought.
Delinquent Land Cases.
Baker VS.. Briggs. From the Circuit Court
of Culpeper county. Opinion by Judge
Cardwell.
The plaintiff flied his application under
the act of February Il, 1885, amending
section 665 OF the Code. The ORIGINAL bill
ayers that the statute is invalid and that
the sale Hereunder TO The Commonwealth
was void. because of irregularities recited
in said bill It was held that the. original