The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-12-09

signed his name thereto. In that the name
OF II. G, Price was signed TO both thesc
bonds for the purpose Of making him an
obligor thereon after the delivery and
Signatures by the original obligor. Upon
the issues joined tho jury found IN favor
of defendants in error. but this was
properly set aside because OF newly DIS
coyaied evidence and because the vcrdlct
was contrary TO the law and the eVl 4
dencc. The case wus again trico IN =
September, 1902, upon the same nsianse -
with the same result, verdict N ths ,'h.. =
defendants In error. TINS me co si!.,. -,
fused 10 set aside. whcreupon a Wit 81
error was awarded brinNng the case
boforc tha appellate court for sreyie% VI. lle
court refuses, to disturb the ycruic. as
to Fl. C.. PHcc, treating the case heto
az upon demurrer to evidence. s8
The Judgment Reversed.
, "a IN tr,lctlont directed the Jury
! - dn sdc fnr he defendants II they believed
from the evidence tina ~, lns s.n nd
others to William Gentry the name 4, o. q.
q" = Price was added to said bonds ~,
nt Fra tcher,s knowledge OF, consent Y. ,r ~
court holds that ths not called for BY
upon o; a neuu . The Consideration for the
f bonds was tract land sold by Gentry,
hs oe enIS 81 Ills IN
the$ case camcAtO tho higher court ! nr IS $,
OF the six original obigors. are deau. a'i is
r rev by the court. The court.ho9Il q !
that twas error TO give an ,inst.ruci ~ 4
nredicated on the view that Hatcher nv y, y
n nf f 81 q. Price was subscribed to the
bonds as one of the obligors thereon. y Pc e1
cause there is no evidence In the re sa,ra
lending S.1 n SneT aha hs "
KnnwIedre and consent of Hatcher. he
evidence tends to show that when me
bonds were recalled BY the ~ mI
Of ali parties that they. were TO pc re- re.
executed and yedclivercd TO the opllgeGG,
and that when thus completen py ing nti Hu-
ors and delivered to obllgee. i was me
re-cxecuted and finally completed 60 ~, icy
contemplated by all parties. i tn,s th he
i IInJ' tho other obligors were not
Sone Of the obiigors may have been forged or
Tho plea OF non est faGtum n,e eaas i - and
does not affect the lIael!sy Z, Of other ao-
For these reasons the court ho o ,i,,it
s si 3 d. Be reversed, and this court. pro
cccdifg to enter such Judgment, as . tfc
lower court should have entered. y 4, Is
fby1its lnotice as to the defendant, Il e.
Pi'lce and that Price recover Of the PLAN.
tiff his costs In this cause. 1t TURNER
ordered that ths Tdgment De sst hslte the
cusc,be fcnanded for further proceedings
against liatchers representative,
a Remarkable Case.
Among s,thc cases decided by the SUI
premc Court OF Appeals Of Virginia yes
teeli from the Court Of Law and ,chancery
St aaa etiS Whttia writes the opinion 8
tho court, Affirming the decree 81 the I, tr ~
ever, Judge Whlttlc, whilcaadmittlng that
the proceedings In the case were IN tschni'
cn compliance with tho statute, charges
ad }ha fHrn igan Ha Raw nave Been ssppe
of a valuable Inheritance and that mis-
carriage OF Justice has r, resulted fE S:,
the mscon4uct Ct their Trustee an t
sup p1oce aSsa }schhicay eorreet YET psr,
petratng q wrong for when there Is s., no 70
e fhsas Of 81 thp property Involved IN the 1T
s"aWIiHhH! ie the( court feels constrained 10
ieot H as to these defendants, an eSam-
nation OF the record makes u painfully
apparent that there has been y miscar,,
brought about by the miscondduct Of THO
trustee and Former counsel OF these. I'M
fortunate lltlAAnts BY whose malad y 9,
sion nd I'M p|OSlll0lla w = tllE NouflS WY
have been Shipped OF q valuable inheri-
lance. no sltuation.is rendered TIE more ,lrs
PROPERTY has }passed beyond the courts
control, and At is powerless 10 repair Y
zine Sth deveIobments in tleg case acccn:
tuate the NECESSITY for tho exercise Of
courts courts il dealing with this class OF cases
as will rendea, the occurrence of similar
results Impossible, otherwise a benign
statute espeepy dssigne,d Tor tbs hs pro
verified into a5l Instrument for ther de-
StructTOn.'
his executor III trust for his son, William
j. Rhea sr f1r llie Wth nhn1H to
him seven imEroYed lots In Norfolk city.
succeeded the original trustee appointed
by the Viii, and at August rules, 1850,
fled E LIZ napiiE v ara he coppeat{3n
william Il KheiR, ST. and his ehlldIren'
For the sale of four Of the seven lots
for the paym,9nt Of taxes, repairs and I'M