The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-01-22
IN F AVOR OF
MRS, RHU.L |. | J,
tIcnrico Woman Wins Her Case
Against tie Seaboard Air
Lite Railway Company.
YOUNG WEST LOSES CASE ';'''|:
The West End Youth Manned in
a Street Railway Accident
Gets No Damages.

Among the opinions handed down by
tho Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Wiz
ginia yesterday were several Of especial
local interest Two Of tho cases are suits
against railways by Henrico people.
In the case Of Rhule vs.. the seaboard
Air Line Railway Company, from the
Circuit Court OF IIcnrico county, the
opinion of the court. written by Judge
James Keith, president Of the court, re-.
verses the Judgment Of the lower court.
This case Is an action Of ejectmcnt
brought by Mrs. Rhule against the rail-
way to recover a piece OF land. The DE-
PENDANTS demurrcd to the declaration
upon the grounds, %. that 1t fans 20
show the legal title to the property 20
be in the plaintiff (2) that 1T does not
asuflciently describe the property IN
question. Mrs Rhulc was given q YER
dict by the Jury subject. to the demurrer e,
to the evidence, for the premises de'
manded and assessed the damages az s9Vo,
Upon this verdict the Circuit Court Ell
tered the Judgment before the appeilaite
court for review. The court businesses
the contention as to the title OF Mrs.
Rhule to the property, holding tnat ~.
actual possession of the land is sufficient,
I 10 s, enable the occupant to recover )!
from mere trcspasser. who entered
without any title
AS to the second point OF the demurre'',
the Judge holds that the court does nov
feel warranted in holdnng that the prem :
ises claimed are not described with such
convenient certainty as that, from such
description, possession thereof may no1
be delivered. The con mention That thh
damages awarded are excessive and sthat
final Judgment ought not to DO entereo
z Is dismissed by the court with the sta1te
mont that objection should have nech
made in the trial court, and that y. ~ -
too late to make such contention ! il nc.
was no objection. says Judge he !tii, -
the trial court to the damages a"arueu,
and It cannot be made for the hts.
time in this court. The plea LOT ne"
trial is disposed OF in the following IAN
p,,ape. \ The appellate court cannot grant
such new trial; for that would be e re-
verse the Judgment OF an Inferior court
an a motion for new trial here, when
vas NOT made to that court, and OF
course. on a matter in which that court
com united no error. The Judgment OF
the Circuit Court is reversed, and TINS m
court will enter judgment IN accord
ance with the verdict OF the jury.
West. VS.. R. r. & p. Co,
In the case Of West. by. &C., vs. the
Richmond Railway and Electric En- G r;co
county &c opig;on Of the S9art oe sls
tains the lower court. This is the secon no
appeal in the case. which grew ou t OF liz !,
loss Of leg BY yH1ang gI Mesp on tbs for.
w erdfhp platform Of an electric car. In
some way he fell, was thrown or knockSedd
from the car, and had his leg so ma ng .!,.'
i had to be amputated At IN, the tr So nut hut
the company appealed, and the 1udgheetti e
OF the lower court was reversed on the
ground OF material departure IN the les
timony from the case made by the decth
ration The case was remanded "a. to . the
Circuit Govt for a new trial. with leave
to the plaintiff. If so advised. to NE ., an
amended declaration. Al the new III dit
for the defendant was returned ana Juus-
ment rendered, which Is now before tne
appellate c'urt ~! review. j.. llat re- re-
regard the testimony Of the plaintiff, pc,
cause the amended declaration charged
one act of negligence while the evidence
tended to prove ano o H. a11e ea tions Of
! the dcelara ton and evidence relied on 70
support them. The PLAINTIFF excepted to
this ruling, but In preparing Dill ~
mony. The record. as copied and certlned
BY the CLERK. contains no part u the eVlT
dencc It Is insisted by the appellant
that the appellate cuurt n'lHhr TO. !, W1l y
n writ of certiOrari upon the foregoing
facts, to compel the Circuit Gours 70 e aai
as part of the record. The Facts relle9 !
on to warrant the issuance of a. writ OF
certiorari not only do not suggest a
diminution of the record, but. on the con.
trnry, show atilrmatiyely that the report
Of the evidence constitutes no part Of the
record, The appellate court; therefore,
has no power to relieve existing condl-
tons, either by certiorari or otherwise.
Ut is settled practice that the EVIDENCE
3 is not part of the record. unless mace
SO BY bill Of exceptions, and II copied
into the record, 1t cannot be considered
by the appel a-e court. -,
In it's conclusion the court says: All Al
presllmptonS are In favor or the correct
ness Of the Judgment OF the court below
and against tho exceptor. and unless !, a.
forth specifically and definitely the ale.
cation Of error relied on and SO much
Of tho evidence as Is necessary to, eha pie
the appellate court q lhtSs lnteilleclt,S
uponSthc question raised. the 1udgment, Q I
tho trial court must be, sustalne1;. I ln
With respect 70 tie suggested hardship
of disposing of the case in the absence
of the evidence. It may be remarked tina
the court is not II sl,onsible f,r the MS
sion. and Is poWerless to supply the DEN
cheney, In the practical admlnistratlon
force the law as they find IT, they can
not undertake to prevent hardship IN
particular cases by departure from es-
tablshed principles.
Persinger's Adm'x VS., Allegheny
4 ~ lf-.f.h