The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-09-18

& STAJNTON. VA. September 1.-THE
following were among the more important
i@Ini5the case OF Howdashcll and others
". Krcnnjng. from the Circuit Court @
lcjcctmcnt brought tby William I<renning
against w. a. lIowdashel, Frank 7.
cha I'm r. NJ Funk and Green c !; nat
2.00D acres OF land In Wythe county. which
was. purchased by Krenning from, the
in part and reycrses III part the decree q
sisnmen,s q error, he holds: tia, The de-;
Of insulcien nc Of the Sd deseripIon OF the
premises, was properly. overruled = that
tho court did not err In admitting m
evidence copy Of the grant from +. TIE =,
Was objected to on the ground that It
did not show that the original patent wa
sealed with the lesser seal of tho Cons
mon veal til: e tina t 1T was not necessary TO
show seisina IN faet..and the grant con-
.tcrred constructive seisin, sufficient to-
enable the patentee q mai ntnin an az
was properly overrAled mat as !, g The i,
'palntif5 an error =, o {, tllan moTdashe
did not demur ,oIDthc eyidcr,F., II is q
Upon tie issue BY BY their pea Of not
guilty. For the error OF the court in not
Setting aside the verdict as to them and
fn ,ra va. oE.'on ol.e
the verdict set aside and the cause. re-
snanded for q =, new trial AS I, Low
Is held mat There was no erpNr
fo forth & land described III the second count
In the declaration,t g Which count ne Was i,,a
partynnd the 5n ndnt as % nm
y reY Observation-Disclosures R2sppi %FEI n.ly
The opinion de!ivered by J.dE,e g Y
vs.. Thomas & Company, from the Circuit
Court of Giles county, will be Of Interest
% Al. lawyers in,this siate;; y :, i, j
s;Sso3, ding with TIC declaration, an
itemzed account, verified BY TIE az ilid q;
fl lin. ' Of d. Is b. Thomas 4 CO. The ques-
ton raised on the appeal was whether ..i, g Or
Client, under section 1886 Of the Code.
which provides that the acG e IN s4 iSa
sHt ;a bs yepea " The CT
s Sc ather than an agent Alter quot.
aep III %or syen gs ya'eSi
3bookkee l' g may may be, and often Is, the
Of his emplgye th1 Wora aoas
and In the absence OF nycrlnent ~ tne
aiidavIt that ii exists. the courts cannot ne,
by amendment enlarge the OFu!HntS s!f
Within a class to which It may. or may
not belong He further says that Ir ol
the citations made It seems that q book-
Keeper Is a servant IN tho broad sense ~
Which that term is employed ~ the la 'a
Aoldpg otefiw y tne ud ad
f.''1s = ' Ns LIQUOR VIOLATION
u Tho opinion OF the court ~ me 3, & fa ~,
q AggeW y, yS Gommo wealth was Wfi'se''
= fired .Agnew was ARRESTED under g.
warrant. issued by tho nYy H. OF. bu i.s,II
Vista OH the SOth OF March, 1903, for sell
Ing liquor within two miles Of the cor.
8porate limits Of the city IN vlo!alom q OF
billing such l!e Was tried ,6efehGe n 1me
mayor, found guilty ana MS nuhtfs a ~.
months NOM 8 and no 81 500. Upon al. appeal
to tho Cooperation Court OF BueIa Y, lsttt
ne ct SEQ was iImp vSs ta tp9m TO W Tie
\ III. only question passed upon u athe
opinion Is that Of the jurlsdsc lion q In. sne
mayor of Ruena ista over III, oIIts =. ,,Its
Of that city, Alter discussing tho mater
al some length. the court holds that re
Was WITHOUT such jurisdiction. and for
that reason the Judgment OF the .C s.pat
ton Court y ratHegsedb ~ aga BE-
a a. slt "a and al SUBSEQUENT proceedings
n " g u iNisAup IN oLLEcTIo
Tho suit OF Johnson and tot theirs vs.. iI Iul
the e 3o court os
Lucas Lucas in faSor7of b, i. Thomas. and y
fannul tile proceedings in q chancery suit,
Instituted by Thomas, to subject the