The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-01-24
NO DAMAGES FOR
MENTAL WORRY
important Decision in Western
Union Case.
VICTORY FOR Mr.. C. B. WOOD
New Trial OF His Cause Against the Ameri-
can National Bsnk-Mauy 0piu-
ions Handed Down
Yesterday.
VICTORY FOR Mr.. C. B. WOOD


rendered when a circuit judge. i has
rarely ever happened that he has been
reversed
Judge whittlc wrote the opinion in the
case of c. y. Wood vs.. the American
National Bank. This was an appeal from
tho Law ano' Equity Court % Richmond.
mir. Wood kept an account with INC
bank He drew Il check for $500 and 1t
was not honorcd. though he had more
than that sum on deposit, lie claimed
that his credit was greatly injured, ana
sued for DANA Ses The jury at the hrst
trial awarded him S.e5. The court set the
verdict aside Al the second trial inc
verdict was for so. Mr.. Wood Appealed
on the ground that the lower court mao
refused TO allow him to introduce cVl-
dencc in support of his claim for eXein-
,5laI,y damages il WAS held that the
Law and Equity Court had erred inc
cause was rcmandcd and new trial or
dcred.
Western Union Wins.
A case Of unusual interest decided was
that OF Connolly against the Western
Union Telegraph Company. 1t came up
from tho Corporation Court OF Buena Wis
Ia. Connolly claimed that a message was
sent TO him signed Little Sisters" an
nouncing the death Of his father in Rich
mond and that on account of the delay
Of the company in delivering 1t he was
unable 10 attend IflS 1uusldl lie CldIiii-
cd 81. 500 damages for mental suffering. lie
lost his case in the lower court. whose
Judgment was affirmed. Similar cases
have been decided in other States. but
this is the first time the Virginia Court
has laid down tic principle that a per
son is not entitled to recover damages
for mental suffering occasioned by the
failure of a telegraph company to prompt
" deliver dispatches.
The Writ Deuied.
The case OF Rowe and others against
Drisgell was a petition for writ of
nandamus. The petitioners applied to
William H. nrisgell, oyster Inspector, for
tongmens license i'll King & Queen coun-
ty. The ground in dispute had been
leased TO George W. Richardson. The pc
tition claims that this is natural oyster
planting ground but the respondent al
leses that it is a portion of the oyster
planting grounds. Without deciding the
merits of the case, the court refused TO
grant the petition, on the ground that
the mandamus was not the proper rem
coy.
Tho Norfolk and Western Railway Com
pany won III, its suit against Poole.s ad-
ministrator. This was a suit brought to
recover damages for the death of Will
liam J. Poole by the alleged negligence OF
the company. The jury in the Circuit
Court Of NanSemond awarded damages.
The judgment of the lower tribunal was
reversed and the case rcmandcd for
new trial.
In the case of The Newport News and
Old Point Railway ana Electric Com
pary VS. the city OF Newport News it
was held that the city has the right to
levy a license tax upon the company.
Railroad Wins.
The case of tho Chesapeake and Ohio
Railway Company Us. Walker and
others from the Circuit Court of Lynch
burg, is one of great Importance. not
only on account of the magnitude of the
interests involved to the Railway Com
pany, but because Of the principles set
tied in respect to the rights of corpora
tons as riparian proprietors The Chesa-
peake and Ohio. as the successor in title
Of the James River and kanawha. Com
pany. acquired a lot in Lynchburs con-
demned by the Canal Company for its
purposes in 1886. This lot originally con-
tained about two acres, but in the
time which has elapsed since its con-
domination it has been enlarged by
cessions and deposits on the river front
so that it is now about four acres. Walk
or in 1885, attempted to acquire title to
this LOT on the theory that the canal con-
domination did not extend to the river,
and he accordingly secured deed from
the dcvisce of the original proprietor of
The lot 10 all of it, except d. strip 100 feet
wide which he allowed for the strip
originally condemned by the Canal Com
s,any, and Walker conveyed the property
subsequently TO other parties. The Chesa-
peake and Ohio Instituted chancery
suit, setting up its title TO the original lot
as well as the additions thereto formed
on the river front, and asked the court
TO cancel and amend the several deeds to
Walker and others and so remove the
cloud cast thereby on its title. The
claimants defended on the ground that
The James River and Kanawha Company,
under its charter only took an easement
in the lot condemned and could not there
fore acquire riparian rights, and secondly
that if it took fee it was confined rigid
~ to The area condemned which could not
Ee extended Beyond such boundary: and
thirdly that the railway company was by
its conduct III reference to this lot, cstopp-
ed to assert title to it.
The Circuit Court OF Lyncl1burg decided
the case against the Chesapeake and
Ohio Company'S contention and dismissed
its BILL but in the Court of Appeals in
an unanimous opinion reverses the decree
of the Circuit Court and decides every
point a. issue in favor OF the Chesa-
peakc and Ohio Company. The opinion
by Judge Keith is able and elaborate, and
fully covers the issues raised.
On the subject of riparian rights the
court holds that tho James ltiver and
Eanawia Company acquired a fee simple
riparian title under its charter to the land
condemned by it. and that the Chesapeake
snd Ohio Railway Company. as the sue
cessor in title of the James River and
Kanawha Company, is a fec simple ri
parian proprietor. clothed with capacity
60 take iure alluyionis. and that the water
line upon James river, no matter how it
shifts. remains the boundary OF its prop
rrty. and that It. and those under whom
II claims having acquired title and Dos