The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-09-23
.OP Unions
RENDERED.
Interesting Cases Decided in
the Supreme
Court.
PETITIONS AND APPEALS
-PETITIONS
The Fine Against the Irnmigra-
ton Society Of Albemarle
Was Confirmed.
Especial to Tho Times. Dlspa.ch.)

y
day handed down opinions in five cases,
as follows:
BY Judge James Keith, President: Tea
walt v. Ramey's exccutrix, ct ais. Cir
cult Court Of Shenandoah county; re-
versed.
ton Society of Albemarle County v. Com
monwealth. Circuit Court Of Albemarle
county; affirmed.
BY Judge Stafford G. white: Chesa-
peake and Ohio Railway Company v.
Heath. Circuit Court Of Albemarlc coun-
lty; reversed. city OF Charlottesville v.
j. S. F'ailes. Circuit Court OF Albemarle
county: reversed.
BY Judge George NJ. Harrison: Downing,
etc, v. Thompson. ct ais. Circuit Court
of Warren county: reversed. III
PETITIONS FOR APPEALS, ETC.
Covlngton V. FarIsh's administrative,
etc Circuit Court Of Prince William
county: appeal refused.
William r. rrigg Company, ct ais, v.
Bucyrus Company, ct ais. Chancery
Court OF city OF Richmond; appeal; bond,
$500.
City OF Richmond v. Postal Telegraph
Gable Company; motion to remove to
United States Court overruled.
Ratliff v. Ratllff. Circuit Court Of
Washington county; order amended and
rehearing refused.
MILL BURNED.
The opinion OF the court, by Judge Har-
irison, reverscs the Judgment OF the Cir
cult Court Of Albamare county and
grants a new trial In the case Of Chesa-
peake and Ohio Railway Company v.
Thomas S. Heath.
Heath owned O. large flour mill at
scottsvii,e. on the James River division
Of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway,
situated near the railroad tracks. which
was burned on the night OF November s.,
1901, and in March following he insti-
.tuted suit against the railway company
for $4,000 dana ges, alleging that the fire
was caused by sparks from an engine Of
that company. The mill was built Of
brick, covered with slate, and a shed adj
ditlon was covered with tin a wooden
spout, which carried off dust. chaff.
etc. from the wheat, came through an
attic window in the end Of the mill next
to the railroad, ran down the wall to the
roof OF the shed, and over the roof to the
edge. The fire was first discovered In
the attic OF the mill and it was claimed
that this spout, having been set on fire
by a, spark from an engine, conveyed the
are into the mill. Upon the trial OF the
case in the Circuit Court. a verdict was
rendered In favor Of Heath for $500 and
from the Judgment for that amount the
railway company. a ppealed. vs.
After n very clear and concise state
ment Of the facts proved. Judge Harrison
says that the court, being Of opinion
that there was a failure on the part OF the
plaintiff TO make out case emitting him
10 recover, it lis considered unnecessary
to do more than consider the second as
signment OF error which was 10 the re-
fusal Of the lower court to set aside the
verdict6as contrary to the law and the
evidence. Continuing, he holds that the
pa rty who affirms negligence must estao-
fish 1t by proof sufficient to satisfy rea-
sonable minds, and that the evidence must
show more than probability Of a negli-
gent act; that when liability depends
upon carelessness or fault of q party, 1t
is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show
how and why the accident occurred; that
where the injury resulted from one OF
two causes, for one of which the defen-
dant is responsible. but not for the other.
the plaintiff cannot recover; nor can he
recover II it is Just as probable that the
damage was. caused by one as BY the
other. He finds that In this case there
was a total failure to show how the fire
occurred that there were several sources
suggested from which the fire might have
arisen, but that 1t was no more likely TO
have been caused by n spark from an
engine setting fire to the wooden spout
thnn5 from any of the several sources
shown to exist inside the mill where the
flre was first seen. and that to hold that
the railway company is responsible would
be the merest guess or random Judgment
without single fact TO support IT,
LONG STANDING ACCOUNT.
Upon the death OF J. NJ. Ramey, Of
Shenandoah county. a suit was Instituted
ihvThis widow as cxecutrix OF the estate.
a. tie Circuit Court OF that county t.
secure the payment Of his debts and a
settlement Of his estate Among the
creditors who came into that suit was
4 N. Teawalt. who was at one time IN
the employment of Ramey as q laborer,
ard afterwards rented land from him
,rhc transactions between them extended
over period Of twenty-slx years, Of
W hich no regular book account was kept.
The commissioner OF the court, who was
directed to state the account, filed four
statements, finding in the first, or 'ln-
Hal account" balance due Teawalt
81 s5o7.02, in the second sleS!,66, and in
the third $255OS. while In the fourth he
finds Teawalt indebted to 'Ramey's es-
late in the sum OF 1874. Inc Circuit
Court refused to confirm any one OF these
re ports, on the ground that.a decree In
favor Of either party would be founded
more on conjecture than on facts, and
dismissed Teawalt with costs, frcn which
decree he appealed to the Supreme Court
for a reversal.
Judge Keith, president.o Of the court. in
writing the opinion in the case Of Tea
walt vs.. Ramey's executrix, says that
after giving the evidence In tho record
it's best consideration, the court is Of
upnlon that there Is balance due Tea
walt from Ramey's estate; and after
striking out a charge for nursing of ;l50
and interest and allowing the estate a
credit OF $50. which was allowed IN tho
second alternate statement, tho Initial
ASIHMA,AND HAY FEVER CURED.
The truly marvellous cures Of Asthma,
which ara being effected by Dr.. Schiff-