The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-12-10
SERVANTS
TO BE PAID I'D
The Will Of Major Lewis Gintcr'
is Construed BY the State
Supreme Court.
WISHES OF T q TEs | 4 or
Able Opinion Prepared by Judge
KEITH Other Cause.-The
Court Takes a@Rccess.
WISHES OF THE TEsTAT 'l!|

Ter, INC WBll+hIOWl piAAus'NhA VI
pst. comes up en- appeal from the decree
Of the Circuit Court OF Ilenrico county.
The opinion III the case, written by Judge
James. Keith. president of the court, IS
All exceptionally clear and convincing
one. 1t ai1lrms the decree Of the lower
court ~
The orlgfnnl srit, out of which the APP
peal grew, WIS entered by J.. r. Shelton,
suing on beh..lfa Of Z himself and others
who might contribute to the costs, was
filed in the Circuit Court Of " ]Ienrico
county, asking tho construction OF the
nth codicl Of the viii Of Ma 1or Lewis Levi.
Gintcr, by which he bequeathed to GER
tain persons therein named specific sums
Of money The following language Is
used in the codicil referred to: ITO all
servants in my. employ at the time of my
death. $50 EACH A large number claimed
the benefit OF this provision, and BY the
decree OF the Circuit Court tho executors
were required to pay out In the aggregate
the sum Of something more than $4,000 to
these legatees, whose separate. demands
were S each. The executors OF Mr.. GIN
ter appealed from this decree, and In
this way the case comes before the Ap-
pellate Court for review.
TWO POINTS INVOLVED.
There are but two points involved in the
case m One of these was the question OF
Jurisdiction raised by the appellants. the
contention being that as each aone OF the
appcllees receives only the sum OF $50
by the decree. II does not come within
the jlrIsdic,ion limit imposed by law
upon this court; tho second being US to
tho meaning OF the word servant, as used
by the tcstator.
AS to the first point, the court quotes
several decided cases to sustain IT IN
overrullng tho plea of no Jurisdiction.
Among the decisions quoted is that Of
Hicks VS.. the Roanoke Brick Company
oath Virginia, 742, In which the court
refers to all Virginia decisions and holds
that the am INIT decreed "a gainst the APP
pellant is the amount In controversy as
| to him, and net the several amounts de-
creed in favor, of the appellee. II. the
aggregate OF The sums decreed against
| the appellant exceeds $500. this court has
jurisdiction, although the amount de-
creed to no ore of the appellees amounts
to $500 The motion to dismiss must be
oYerruled.
MEAN ING OF SERVANT. b
The court then takes up the question
Of the true meaning to be given to the
word servant, as used blythe testator IN
the codicil III question:. The language Of
the codicil Is quoted here more in detail
and other requests made In the will are
rafel red to .lsgcu,nulative evidence OF the
intent Of the testator. The court then
quotes Mr.. Minor tho we'll known law
writer; Woods Master and Servant,
another stanlard law work: the Century
Dictionary, the Standard Dictionary and
Webster's Dictionary, showing that the
word Is not confined to the narrow, re-
strcted definition and usage given 1t col
loquialy, but is broader In its meaninG
in short, generic and not q specific term
AS evidence that the testntor desired the
word to be construed In Its broader and
generic sense. rather than In it's specific
and restricted sense, the court refers TO
the fact that the word Is strengthened
and Its mctl..ing intensified by the ad-
dition Of tha adjective "all." Says the
court; ''There 10 nothing in the Will nor
in the context of the residue OF tho clause
which limits the meaning Of the word
Applying the doctrine OF noscitur a
socls, the effect would be to enlarge. II
possible rather than limit. the meaning
OF the word servants, ! for It clearly APP
pears from the evidence that among
those specifically named nre at least three
persons who were not a. the time OF the
date Of the will nor at the death Of the
INTENTION OF TEsTATOR.
ur1er u the sqnr Wo Of his Sec1 bas1
easy to contlne the beequest t. q class
ald ss'o o1 sade II haa se
restraining purpose Is shown, Our office
Ia to md out the intention Of the testa-
tor. from. the Words he used, giving ~
II lis is not lot FOR us to interpoiate words "
to indulge IN strained construction to Of
lectuate q presumed Intention; We are
ocn one" 7 d
il closing his opinion in this very inter
estng cnSe. the co1rt SAYS; 'Ihe d teista!or
portion e 81 IFS viii Witch dspesss Of ths
nulk Of bis property. he aoubtless NJ ~ !
Jaw, hut when no came, To- write tlts
codicl he took counsel only of his kindly
A 6ad, s
snas aa Is na More e
lng he gave leEacies BY name: ana then
though the individuals composing It NAY
have entered his service only at tn
'"it ii not for us to stint the stream or
testator's bounty. within a, ma rroWer chan-
mel than his gsperosltyts sa1wMftl to trace
o 81 Liz hay Te a Se @ is e @ s
"H ssss gym caat eaaSt
affirmed
Traction Company VS.. Martin.
rhS o oRn9n Sd Ee fHHt o ~ s Vs.
n ne i administratoS Si is Wrten IS Galys
s!dda e 3 81 s ~ ha%ty SoaE
In this case Walter Martins .adminla-
tratrlx sued the Richmond TRACTION Com,
p9ny, for damages dug S 70 the killing Of
cnth. on the night OF pecem-
Der e., 1900. Martin was crossing
the street from tho hothtWest corGn n a.
IN dong so was struck by the, fender Of a
slowly moving en-, knGccked down and 50
injured that he died, although TIE wh.nmn AL.
Jury In the TRIAL court gave u verdict for
the plaintiCf. from which the defendant
A witt OF error was asked and granted,
the assignment OF error. on Which the
company rel!ed for q review Of he case
court to give the instruction asked by the
defslldnni as Ioffered but In making All