Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1903-01-23
A SIGNAL DANGER A n ! (
PEOPLE APPROACHING RAILROAD.
CROSSINGS MUST LOOK AND LISTEN.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
nichmond Real E.tnte Man Wins
Sui. over Property In Lee Dis
trict-Mt.Ied by TcIcaram-Juds-
nent in Case of Johnson We. r.. F..
a r. Affirmed.

The Supreme Court met yesterday and
rendered the following decisions:
Southern Railway Company v Al
bridges administrator. from the Corpor-
alton Court, city OF Danville. Judge
Keith delivered the opinion affirming the
lower court.
The administrative Of C. w AldridGe
brought suit In the Corporation Court OF
the city OF Danville alleging that the
death OF her in;estate was due to negn-
geYice Of the Southern Railway Company,
and recovered judgment for $500. 10
which the Southern Railway Company
Obtained writ OF error. II Is alleged as
error that instruction No. was amend
ed by the court by striking out the WORD
stop
The opinion says. This court has never
decided that as matter Of law 1t was the
duty of person approaching the cross
!J.g. Of railroad to stop. look and listen
for an approac ching train. 1t was been
said in numerous cases that the rail-
road track itself was a signal OF dan
ger and imposed upon one approaching
st the duty to look and listen, but 1t has
In no case been held that 1t was his duty
to stop In order to look and listen. or
that 1t was his duty when In vehicle
to get out In order to look and listen. On
the other hand. II has been said that
the degree Of care and caution to be ex-
ercised depended upon the facts and cir
cumstances Of the particular case. and
we have had no occasion to say that in
no case would a traveller be required to
stop In order to look and listen. Il is
not denied that instruction No. s as
given by the court propounds correct
proposition of law: the contention is. that
as offered.sit not only states the law cor
rectly but that it was proper and should
have been given looking to the facts OF
the case under consideration. II the In
Btruction had stated all the facts 1t
would then have required us to say
whether IT was the duty Of the defend
ant in error to stop in order to look
and listen. but the instruction omits
view Of the evidence which we deem es-
sential to the case.
WHEN INSTRUCTIONS ARE MIS-
LEADING.
An instruction Is naisleadin and sh aud
not be given which calls special atten-
ton to part4nnly- Of the evidence and
the facts II tends to prove. and leaves out
OF view other evidence in the cause.
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
y. .Cromer. 80 Virginia. 7ea
Error. Is assigned to the ruling of the
court upon a motion to set aside the
verdict as contrary to the law and the
evidence This assignment Of, error is
considered as upon demurrer to -.e
evidence. "Lookeds at in the light of that
rule" the opinion says. .-ere can be no
doubt that the defendant in error was
guilty of negligence. The facts which we
must consider as-estab.isaed by the evil
dence are that-the train which caused
the accident approached a crossing at
speed prohibited by. an ordinance of the
city. and which if there had been no ordi-
nance upon the subject. would have
warranted the jury in fixing negligence
upon the railroad company. when we con-
slider that its trao.. crossed public
street at grace. and that II gave no no.
tsce Of its approach in any way; that its
headlight was extinguished. and that its
watchman who was placed at the cross.
ing to. give warning of approaching trains
failed In the performance OF MS duty
The Corporation. Court Of the city of
Danville is affirmed.
COST OF LEE DISTRICT LAND.
Sloan v. Rose. Opinion b" Judge Har-
rison. affirming the decree OF the Chan
Gerry Court of the city of Richmond.
The bill In this case was filed for the
purpose Of enforcing specific performance
Of the following contract, dated March II.
1901:
Mr.. Charles A Rose:
i will give you sl5 per front foot, for
the S45 feet tmore or iess) situate upon
the north line Of Harrison street, in Lee
District. between Robinson and Cedar
streets. by depth of 17s feet : . Terms.
one third cash. balance In one and two
years secured with interest upon this lot
or all cash at option of purchaser Title
TO be good and taxes assessed from jan
nary l, 1901 JAMES T. SLOAN.
Accepted: S. r. Rose,
It is alleged that after the contract
was executed. 1t was altered by adding
the words '.and taxes assumed from
january 1. 1901" The court holds that
this Is purely question of fact, and
tnat the evidence Is overwhelming to the
effect that the charge is without founda-
ton.
The court says: THE record abundant
~ shows that the appellee has come into
court with clean hands asking to have
enforced completed contract fairly
mace. anc with respect to which no faint
OF fraud appears" The decree is af-
drmee.
MIsLED BY TELEGRAM.
1NHA~