The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-11-08
DAY con SUNED
IN ARGUMENT
Case Of Watkins Against King Con-
Guided in Court of Appeals.
IMPORTANT CASE TO-DAY.
Decision Rendered Bearing Upon Practice in
tie United States courts-Judse
Jackson Goes on tae
Bench.
IMPORTANT CASE TO-DAY.

The second days session OF the United
States Circuit Court or Appeals convened
yesterday morning 1t 10 O'Clock. Judges
Golf, Simonton and Purnei constituted
the court. The entire day was consumed
in the argument OF the case of n.
Watkins ct al, plaintiffs III error, vs.
Henry c. King, defendant in error, which
was continued from Tuesday. The
cause was further argued by Maynard
f.. St.ies, or charleston, w. Va, and S.
L. FlournoN, OF the same city, for the
defendant in error; and by Il. I. Vinson
or Huntington, w. Va. Il. r. Henry OF
TazcwelI, and William Il. Burns,
of Lebanon. N.,-. for the plaintiff in
error. and submitted
Opinion in the case Will be handed down
a. the February term.
Court will convene this morning at the
usual hour. when Judge jackson. VINO
arrived yesterday, will so on the bench.
& The following cases will be called for ar
s. gumeilt to-day:
The Eirsinia-Caroiina Chemical Com
psny. appellant, Us. The Home M
surance Co., of New York, ct al. appel
lees. Appeal from tho Circuit Court at
Charl>hton, S. C. To be argued by Mitch
ell & Smith. of Charleston. S. c., for ti:e
appellant. and by Smithe, Lee & Frost,
of Charleston. S. c., and King e Spald-.
tng. of Atlanta. Ga, for the appeliees.
No. 406-Marcus J. Goodson, appellant,
vs. Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany ct al. appelees. To be argued ly
iex-Judge Charles A. Moore. OF AsheSllie,
N c.. for the appellant. and by Wills
b. Smith, of this city, for the appeliees
BEARING on. PRACTICE.
The opinion in the case of the South
Penn. Oil Company, against o. f. Sat
show. handed down by this court on the
opening day, is most important one
to the lawyers of the Fourth Circuit
because of its bearing on the practice IN
the United States Courts. The opinion
was written by Judge Golf. and that part
which relates to the practice in reference
to the preparation of bills of exceptions
ard assignments is as follows:
THE assignments Of error pertaining
TO the refusal of the court to give Ger
tain instructions asked for by the de-
PENDANT below should not be considered
by this court, for the reason that the
evidence, if any there was, by which
the relevancy Of the instructions refused
could have been shown is neither quoted
In full. nor its substance set forth in the
bill Of exceptions relating thereto. IN
deed. there seems to have been in the
preparation of the bills of exceptions an
uIIer UlSCeSdTG- OIL lie rules ol tjiS Soui u
as also of the practice in matters of this
character as established by the decisions
of this court and of the Supreme Court
CT the United States.
FREQUENTLY GIVEN. -
Tie reason for themakins and
for the enforcement of said rules.
as we'll as for the observance
of the practice so established. have been
frequently given. Phoenix Life lnsur-
ance Co. Us. = 'din, 100 U. s.. 1888: Block
rs. Darling. r. q. S. 2s4; Van Gunden
VS.. Virginia Coal and Iron Co. 9th Cir
cuiD, s US. App, 90, 50 Fed, SIS; New
man vs. Virginia T. & C. Steel & Iron
Co. AZ u. S. App. 466. so Fed, 22S. Such
being the bill Of exceptions We must
presume that there was an utter absence
OF such testimony as made the instruc-
tions refused pertinent, in which event
the court below properly rejected them
The bill of exceptions should have shown
all the testimony. relied on to make the
propositions of law included in the in
structions applicable TO the case as pre-
scented to the jury. Jones vs.. Buckell.
1o4 L. S.. s54.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.
The assignments of error concerning
the giving of certain Instructions prayed
for by the plaintiff below, as well as
those having reference to the courts in
SuucIionS ana charge. must also De Qis-
regarded by this court, because they re-
tpeatedlyi and palpably violate its well
I established rule, which restricts an as
signment of error to one distinct PROPOSE
tion. Clarke ct al. VS.. Deere G. AIansur
CO.. so Fed. 53i; Newman Us. Virginia
Il. & c. Steel & Iron Co., % c. G.. A. $50
"a separate assignment of error in re-
spect to each part. Of the courts charge
alleged to be erroneous, we'll as 10
each instruction given. should have been
taken. Wider vs.. OBrien, GO Fed. S26
In the case we are now disposing of. the
giving of certain instructions, the re-
1usal to give others, and the exceptions
to the courts charge are all combined in
one exception and in one assignment OF
error.