Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1901-03-22
COURTOF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals handed down
opinions yesterday 10 two unusually
interesting cases. One of these invol,
we'd the question OF sale OF land under
the land.grabbers' law. In the ons the
s vss attacked St sd 10 ERe Bill ed nEHharei
Baker made application for the pur'
chase of lands in Culpeper county
Before the deed was made the owners
iu some 80 cases rendered the monev to
the clerk to redeem the property. This
was refused by the clerk. Bills were
filed epj dining be clerk from making
the deeds, attacking the sales TO the
Common wealth and asking that the
clerk be compelled to receive the
money rendered. The bills were de-
INJURED to on several grounds, among
them the want of Jurisdiction OF the
Court OF Equity and also because the
clerk OF the County Court OF Culpeper
was not necessarily q party and that
the suit ought to have been brought in
Greenesville county, where Baker re-
sides. The appellate court over
ruled the demurrer and affirmed
the actional OF the lower tribunal The
case OF Baker vs. Buckner wss substsn
stantially the same as the above, ow-
ing to the allegation OF the bill 10 this
particular case that there had been q
prior sale to the Commonwealth which
was not attacked. The demurrer was
overruled.
The court by it's decision grants o
new trial to II. A. Davis, convicted IN
Fauquier county of poisoning a well
and sentenced to the penitentiary fol-
four years. This case has attracted q
great deal of attention in Fauquier. II
was charged that Davis placed strych-
nine ia a we'll In order that the water
so poisoned might be drunk by Thomas
Stewart and other persons. The pris-
oner demurred to the indictment on
the ground that the use OF the words
land other persons" was not suffi'
cient designation OF the other persons,
whose names were we'll known at the
time of the finding OF the indictment.
Judge Cardsell, in his opinion, held
that the County Court erred 10 refusing
to get aside the verdict. The judgment
was reversed and annFlied and new
trial ordered.
This is summary OF other proceed
ings OF the court:
Horton vs. Commonwealth, County
Court OF Russell county, affirmed;
Davis vs.. Commonwealth County
Court, of Fauquier county, reversed;
Baker VS.. Buckner, Circuit Court OF
Culpeper County, reversed; Baker w.
Briggs, Circuit Court OF Culpeper Coun-
ty, affirmed; Vashon etc.. vs.. Barrett,
ETC., Chancery Court OF City OF Rich
mond. affirmed in part and reversed 10
part; Galway va. Saunders, etc., Circuit
Court of Franklin county, affirmed;
White We. New York. Philadelphia and
Norfolk Railroad C)mpapy, Circuit
Court OF Accomac County, affirmed;
Wilson vs.. Wall, Circuit Court OF Cum
berland county, affirmed; Gray We.
Gray, Circuit Court OF Culpeper county,
writ OF error refused; Horton vs.. Com
monwe alth, County Court of Russell
county, writ OF error refused; Cooper
vs.. Southern Railway Company, Cor
poration Court, city of Danville, writ
OF error refused; Glenn Va. Williams,
Circuit Court OF Tszwell County. sp-
peal refused; Eawrieht vs.. Newport
News SbipbuildiDg Company, Circuit
Court OF Warwick county, writ oferroI
refused.
| Leayell and others We. Smiths execu.
tors, argued by G. d. Gray for appel
lants and submitted. South Roanoke
Land Company vs.. Rob ,rts. argued BY
G. J. Rixey and John s. Barbour io'
appellant and J. L. Jeffries and G. ID
Gray for appellee and submitted.
The next cases to be called are Mel
son va. Tiplett and Doyle's administra
tor vs. Besslsy and others.