Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-12-05

ierest is not given as damages at the dis
cretion of the court or jury. but as an
incident TO the debt. which the court
mas no discretion to refuse
The decree of the Circuit Court OF Fred
erick is affirmed Thus ends a cause that
has been pending since 1881.
Consumers lee Co. Wins.
A case of local interest decided was
that of the Consumers Ice Company VS..
Jennings. from the Law and Equity
Court of the city of Richmond. in which
the opinion was prepared and delivered
by Judge George NJ. Harrison. reversing
the judgment of the lower court, setting
aside the verdict and remanding the
cause for a new trial. The appellate
court ruled that the trial court erred IN
refusing to issue instruction a. asked for
Dy the defendant and in adding TO in
struction C. submitted by the defendant.
1t seems that Judge Jennings had a
contract with the Consumers Ice Com
Dany which reads as follows:
Il hereby agree to furnish Mr.. r. 7.
Jennings what ice he needs at $500 per
ton of 1000 pounds in quantities Of one
ton or more one year from the ABOVE
date april 3rd. 1900 The said ice is to
be sold from his ice box and not from
his wagons on the street.
FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.
The suit was instituted by Jennings to
recover damages for Il breach of this
contract The word ice in the first SEN
tence in the contract and the word his,
coming Immediately before the term ice
box in the last sentence, are interlined
III the contract quoted. 1T appears from
the evidence that during March, 1900, the
ice companies of Richmond made an
agreement not to sell ice TO persons who
would peddle II on the streets. This
agreement became effective April LIST.
1900. prior to which date they had sold
without restriction. The plaintiff, it
seems bought ice under this contract
and sold the same at $500 the ton, an adj
vance of 81 per ton. Under his construc-
ton of the contract he sold from his ice
box to wagons of other people, but did
not sell from his wagons the ice pur-
chased under the contract.
me cruX of the question involved was
whether the word his" was interlined
before or after the signing of the con-
tract and whether :he burden of proof
was on the plaintiff TO establish the fact
hat il was made before the signing Of the
contract
instruction A, which the higher court
holds the trial court erred ine refusing,
reads: The court instructs the jury
that the alterations on the face of the
instrument offered in evidence by the
plaintiff detract from its credit. and
make il suspicious. and this suspicion
the plaintiff was bound to remove by a
prepondercnce of evidence
This the Supreme Court ruled should
not have been refused.
The modification of Instruction G,
which the lower court erred in per-
hitting, was that there is no extra
burden on the plaintiff to show that the
contract was not altered by the insertion
Of the word ice and his, for on that
question the burden of proof is equal"
1t was on these two instructions that
the trial court was reversed and the case
remanded for trial anew.
The Record Too General.
In the case of Thomas Anderson VS..
the Commonwealth on a writ of error to
a judgment of the Circuit Court of
Campbell county. affirming the Judgment
of the county court of that county. SEN
fencing Anderson to eight years in the
penitentiary for murder, the appellate
court, in an opinion by Judge Caldwell.
holds that the Circuit Court erred in af-
firming the judgment of the county
court. there being no proof in this case
Of the jurisdiction Of the Campbell
county court. The judgment is reversed
the verdict set aside. and new trial
awarded.
The indictment charged that the muir
Ger LOT WHICH ANDERSON was convicted
took place in the county of Campbell,
but there is no proof in the record that
such is the fact. The only proof as to
the location of the crime is that it took
place at Anderson's store, about a quar-
ter of a mile or more from Lynchs or
LyHch's station but neither Lynchs
station nor Andersons store is shown
to .e located in Campbell county. Judge
Cardwell in the opinion states: I'VE
have been cited no authority, and we
have been unable to find any for taking
judicial cogniZance of the fact that "a
point n given distance from Lynch.s
station an unincorporated hamlet or VIII