The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-22

that the clerk of the County Court, who
had refused to accept the tax fees ten
dered him by appellee, was a necessary
party to the bill, and that the Circuit
Court of the city of Richmond did not
have jurisdiction of such cases as this.
The decree of the Circuit Court was af-
irmed.
Baker Us. Buckner. From the Circuit
Court Of Culpeper county. Opinion by
Judge Cardwell.
This case. involves substantially the
same questions of law as that of Baker
VS.. Briggs just decided, except that the
bill contains an additional averment that
the defendant, Baker, should not be al
lowed to obtain deed from the clerk to
the plaintiffs lot of land referred to in
the application filed by Baker to purchase
it for delinquent taxes assessed thereon IN
1894, because the lot Irevious to lSs4 mad
been assessed in the name OF Alice ).
Green and had been sold to the Common
wealth in her name for taxes thereon for
the years 1856 and 1889, and was, therefore,
transferred contrary to law to the plain
tiff.
The Court of Appeals held that the only
right or title which the appellee has is the
right of redemption provided by statute,
which must be substantially followed
and, therefore. the case is controlled by
the decision of this court in Parsons VS.
Newman, just decided, and Dolley VS.
Christian, sc Va, 534.
The decree appealed from is reversed
and annulled, and the proper decree en-
tered. disn1issing appellee's bill, but with
out prejudice to his rights.
Language Of Indictments.
Davis VS.. The Commonwealth. From the
County Court of Fauquier Opinion by
Judge Cardwell.
H. a. Davis was indicted in
the County Court of Fauquier for
poisoning well, was founo
guilty and sentenced to four years
in the penitentiary. The Circuit Court
refused I. writ of error, but one was
awarded by the Court of Appeals. The
Indictment charges the prisoner with
poisoning the well of one Thomas
Stewart by putting therein strychnine in
order that the water SO poisoned might
be drunk by the said Thomas Stewart
and other persons, with intent to Kill
and iDiure the said Thomas Stewart and
other persons.
The prisoner demurred to the indict-
n,ent on the ground that the use OF the
words land other persons was not a
sufficient designation of said other per-
sons. whose names were well known at
the time of the finding of the Indlct-
ment.
Whether or not the County Court erred
in refusing to strike out the words ana
other persons depends upon whether or
not section 1897 of the Code applies to
this case. staa ,st
The Court of Appeals held that section
1897 applied to the case, and that the
prisoners wife was a competent witness,
but upon the whole of the evidence the
verdict of the jury was considered errone-
Gus. and was set aside and the case
remanded.
Judge Keith expressed some doubt as
to the application of section 1897, but
concurred in the opinion remanding the
case.
Weight of Evidence.
Horton VS.. The Commonwealth. From the
Circuit Court of Russell county. Opln-
ion by Judge Keith, 2.
Jack, Taylor and Henry Horton were
indicted in the County Court of Russell
county for the murder of William Hor-
ton, Jack Horton being charged with the
actual commission of the crime, ana
Taylor and Henry Horton as being pres
ent, aiding and abettinG him in its per-
petration Upon their arraignment Tay-
indictment, and the demurrer being over
ruleA, they pleaded mot guilty. and
upon their trial the jury rendered q VerS
dict finding Henry Horton guilty OF muir
der III the second degree and liking his
term at five years, and Taylor Horton
guilty OF voluntary manslaughter and fix
ing his term at one year. This appear
was taken upon certain assignments OF
error relating to the instructions, the
chief of which was as to No. 13. granted
upon request of the Commonwealth and
excepted to by tie prisoner, and reads
as follows: '"TEA court instructs the jury
that. the credibility of the witnesses is
a question for the jury, and the law is
that where number of witnesses testify
opposite to each other the jury
is not bound to regard the weight of evil
dence as equally balanced. The jury
have the right to determine from the ap-
pearance of witnesses on the stand, their
of testifying and their apparent
candcr and fairness, their apparent intel
liSencc and from all the other surround
ing circumstances appearing on the trial.
which witnesses are more worthfT OF cred
it. and give credit accordingly
This and the other Instructions COM
planned of were held to have been proper,
allowed or refused, as the case may be.
and the judgment of the trial court was
Statute of Limitation.
Getaways Admir- US. Saunders, &c.
From the Circuit Court of Franklin
county. Opinion by Judge Buchanan.
This is a creditors suit to subject the
lands OF a debtor to the payment Of liens
thereon. The statute of limitations was
the principal defense relied on. The Court
Of Appeals held that one creditor may set
up the statute against another. although
the statute is not relied on by the debtor
himself; but this rule only applies to
such creditors as come in under the de-
cree, or otherwise become parties to the
suit, and as to all others the statute will
apply, and that an order for an account
ing will not prevent the securing Of q
statute against the demand OF a creditor
who did not assert his demand in the
suit Judgment of lower court affirmed.
Notice OF Sale.
Wilson rs. Wall. From the Circuit Court
of Cumberland county. Opinion by Judge
Z Whittle.