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

goods, as evidence of guilt, says: SO
that before any such presumption t01
guilt, can arise from the possession OF the
articles, it Is incumbent upon the COM
monweaIth to prove. as an essential ele-
ment OF the offence, that they were bought
or received in the manner prescribed by
the act. Upon that subject there Is no
evidence in the record
IE concluding the opinion. the court
says: In addition to the eltire absence
Of proof OF the corpus deficit. the follow
ing language of Judge Moncure lin case
in which the Appellate Court set aside q
verdict of conviction and awarded a new
trial, and the doctrine Of winch has re-
peateGly held the sanction % the court.
See cases cited in Sleparci's index to 18th
Grattanl, is opposite to tie evidence re-
lied on &c connect the prisoner with the
alleged offence. There circumstances,
taken singly or altogether. while thy
create q suspicion of guilt. are Yet neon
elusive and wholly insufficient TO prove
such guilt, but arc also Inconsistent with
tho fact Of Innocence. Il they be not at
least as consistent with The fact of limo
cence as with the fact Of guilt, they Ger
taiuly 60 not amount 10 such degree OF
proof as TO connect the accused with the
offence and to warrant his conviction
thereof.
4 Richmond Case.
Blanton, trustee. VS.. Hec,sci.eT. from
: the Cllancciy Court OF Richmond. was
tho only local case decided. Judge Whit
tie reversing the decree OF the lower
court The opinion, in full is as follows:
The question involved in this appeal
is. as to the authority Of a chancerV court
TO compel trustee to pay money into
court. who denies liability. before his re-
sponsiblity for the fund has been adjudi-
Gated.
1t appears hat q syndicate, composed
Of y, Heckscher, appellant; Joseph w.
Blanton. appellee. and other creditors Of
tho Virginia Pyrites Mining Company,
purchased the real estate Of that corpo-
ration, under an agreement that their
interests therein should be in proportion
to the amount Of their respective de-
rlards.
For convenience. the property was CON
veyed 10 Joseph ". BiantoD. trustee. for
himself and the other members OF the
syndicate.
II was subsequently placed in the hands
Of real estate agents for sale, at an agreed
commission of 10 per cent OF the purchase
price, provided a sale al not less than
100000 was effected. The property was
sold for that price. and the selling agents
were paid their commissions Of $1,000
which they afterwards divided with B!an-
tor, in consideration. as is alleged, OF
valuable assistance rendered them by him
in concentrating the sale.
Eeckscher. who owned by far the larg-
est interest in the property. upon learn
ing of that transaction. filed bill in
the Chancery Court Of the city OF Rich
| mond. on behalf of himself and other
| members of the syndicate. against Blan-
ton, TO require him to account for and
refund, to complainant his proportion OF
the IS, O0O, which he had received.
The bill charges q secret arrangement
between B!anton and the selling agents
by which tho latter were to charge 10
per cent. commission for their services,
and to divide the same with Blanton.
Blanton. in his answer, admits the receipt
Of half the commission. but denies that
before the sale there was any agreement
or understandin whatever between him
self and the agents for any part.of their
compensat ton, Bis statement In thatscon-