The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-10-01
Augusta county, to set aside the convey
saices as voluntary and fraudulent.

lWl5.s 1hdIhlu ASIllcu slI6 VI
the bill and insisted that she purchased
the property IN good faith, paying full
value Therefor with funds derived from
her separate estate; but. upon being re-
ferred to a commissioner In chancery, he
reported adversely to her contention, and
the court con firmed the report, set aside
the deeds to her, and established MISS
Goodwins claim as q stbsltng lien
upon the lands in controversy.
Lower Court Reversed.
The case OF Garter ct ais. vs.. Wood ct
ais. the opinion In which was written
by Judge Keith, was an action Of eject
ment, brought In the Circuit Court OF
Craig county by Nellie Buckley and
Stewart NJ. Wood, to recover possession
OF two tracts OF land IN Craig county,
containing $50 and $40 acres, respectively,
title 70 which they claim by virtue OF z
deed alleged to have been executed by
Christian Painter and wife to William
NJ. and Hugh p. Wood
The clerk OF Craig County Court testi-
fled that the book In which the deed was
alleged to have been recorded had been
destroyed In 1853 by Federal soldiers, and
that he had searched IN vain for the
deed among the records 81 his office. The
plaintiffs offered to prove the conveyance
OF the land In question by o. certified copy
of the proceedings at the May term 1850.
OF Craig County Court, in which decd
from Christian Painter and wife to Wil-
& to as being admitted to record, and also
the effect that at some time between
1866 and 1872, he saw O. deed between the
above named parties In ,..e possession
OF his father, William NJ. Wood, and
copied the same, but did not know
whether there was anything on It by the
clerk OF Craig county,
Not Sufficient.
The Supreme Court holds that the entry
Of sthe order In the Craig County Court
above referred to was not sufficient to
convey title; that the copy OF the deed
made by John F. Wood, unouthanticated
and without proof pf the geRuineaess.
Of the instrument OF which It purports
to be q copy, in no degree tends to prove
the ex!stence OF the original deed, nor
does the negative proof that Painter owns
ed no other land IN Craig countyi and,
therefore, the paper purporting to be,
2 copy sof the deed in question should not
+. have been admitted IN evidence. sI It is'
also held that the statement as grounds
or defense that plaintiffs have no title
tion, and that the claim and demand Of.
plant Ifs, in SO far as defendants are in-j
formed OF the same, are based upon an
alleged instrument which does not con-
stitute a valid ground for any claim Of
title against the defendants but Is s IL
legal, void Eand OF no effect as against
then1-were sufficient to cover the lbs
lection to the admission In evidence Of
the paper alleged SO be e copy OF the
deed. That, with rare 8ex cerNtons plain.
tiff5in ejectment must recover upon the
strength. OF his own title, and no tn-s
Trinity In defendants title can supply
q defect Of proof upon the part Of the.
The Judgment Of the lower court Is re-.
$versed ii SO far IS 1T finds in favor Of
Nellie Buckley and Stewart n. yood,
and as to them the verdict is set aside
and the case renanded for new trial al:.
For the Company
case Of Norfolk and Western Railway
Company vs.. Briggs. q fire case from
Circuit Court OF Warren county, opin-.
ion by Judge gCardwell. S5y8
This opinion will be Is Of interest be-
cause of the decision as to the adnlissit-5
billy OF evidence as to other fires set
out. by railroad company, IN a case
where the parti cular engine setting the!
fire In controversy has been Identified, B
when such other fires aFe not shown
to have been caused by that engine. This
point has never fore been passed upon
directly BY the Virginia court.
On Eoye1pber Ii, SOL, a lot Of $merchan-3
disc belonging to Robert L. Briggs, in
a. store at BAshby station, on the line Of
the Norfolk and Western Railway. to-
gether with the storehouse. was Destroy
ed BY fire, which was communicate ted to
the store from burning warehouse a.
short distance away and quite near the
railroad. Briggs sued the .rail way com "a
pany for damages for the loss he sus-
tained; on the ground that the fire was
caused BY sparks from an engine OF the
company and up on the trial of the case
he was awarded 81 900, with interest, by
the jury 81 .:s' 4:
IA The errors in the rulings Of the lower
couSt, assigned by the rally company
relate mainly to the adnlissibiltty Of
evidence Offered during the trial. 5
The greater part OF the opinion is de-
voted to discussion OF the first as ],
tsignment Of error. .>>35
Not Admissible.
u After citing numerous decisions in other
States, and tcxt=writers, to the effect;
that lin a case OF this character evi-g
$dence as to other fires along the line
of the railway. not shown to have been
set out by the Identified engine, is not.
admissible the court holds that the ey.-
sdence offered In this case as to fires
other than the one IN controversy, should
mot have been admitted, because plain
tiff in error might have had other de-.
fective engines, 1T semployes may have
been guilty on other occas ioas Of neg
5ligence o. the most culpable cha racter,
yet II engine No, lss. and all Of Its at
tachlnents SO far as these, were con--..
On aSl tie T lsth y Nevember, 1sel speh a.
the law prescribed, g and II the crew Which
was operating It upon 4 that day at the
time Il passed Ashby atlon, we're guilty
OF no omission ct duty. then planting
\ in error could NOT In this case RA held
liable for the fire In question, u.
The other errors ASSIGNED are Passed
upon briefly. Because Of the errors fonnd,
the judgment Of the Circuit Court ~ re-
E1,orc al a M he "a se PHfna nded for a new