The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-13
'H|'|l|.GH|'ES||11'...C|0|.U||||'R|:|'1'|'
PASs[S0|N|'|9IH|E:!NlI||
State's sttprct,1e Tribunal 'tl,la1 SET ett
Ss8Sties Numb of Imp rtaiit
sUsTA \ Is, TA COMMISSION on


4, Otllpa!iF1 y asc ~ s. Is
.3SSBi Into History lI3.3s
Tlo supreme t.ourt of ppctllss V = VA
ginia yestarddy handed down opinions IN
5 number ot cases, several their, local
eases Of great Interest md far:-reuc,hli hin
1scsid les the ten ten $opll In
lois iii the many cases a ecided ,Stlio court
announced tho granting or fusul 4 ct 4 n
number or pot itlons for wits. OF error
tho ono of most ,tercst being n ha AT RE- re-
fusing " d writ of error In VIZ lie case E
VI Samuel III Mcc,ue, Under Il sentence 4. ofl
death 3forbt he murder 81 his wife
III In tho Il case o N the Il Lake Il Drutrn>ondI
Canal and Water Company, III udgo 3Jaf mes
Kcithft president Of tho court, III III 81 d II
elaborate q opinion afilrtns and Esust ms
the judgment or vi the State Corpora ton
Commission, from which the ippeal 8catne
In this case tho Il Lake 5Druiiinond Canal
and Water Company V was served with
to show cnusa why itSshould not bcSnnedi
for failing To- nuke IL report to the com
mission Of all 8its9renl and personal prop
icrty and Its receipts " for trnnsportn lon,i
taa required n by3 4 statute. The 4 company
claimed exemption from the application
tofsttheS statute 4 by virtue #or Va charter
granted \ 10 its pred cessor. IN no Dismal
Swamp Canal Company, B IN "A 7S7 whicli,stits
claimed. granted them irrepealaIle3 Inn
Snlunity from taxa ton s rho commission;
held. tina tt tho answer was insufIl Client, and
Imposed ia fine upon tho company, N from
which his & appeal was had III he com
pa,ly claimed TINT t he statute chnrtering
5the Sconlpa NY was NJ tract 81 and that
violation @of 1t by the state was an in,-s
4pairment Of the obi igat1 Ion OF con tracts
which IA expressl VI forbidd Ion by the Fed
oral nstitutio lon. The court makes L al
distinction between tho case Of a turals
nrd an a rti hclnl person III tho CONSTRUCT
ton Of the law as to the assignment Of
rights and II franchises. Il Numerous opli-s
Ions OF the Supreme Court or tie United
States are quo ted: ~ One OF the fopinions
quoted is the e ffeot that there lis $l,o
Inference III fnypr u ( an exemption from
staxat Ion ~ the Legis stature did not irIn-
arltiyely gran Il tile n /, lit /. 4 ha whole ducs-
ton inyol we'd In his case Fls whether or;
not an#cxcmption from tuxnticni granted;
by legisat ure ~ to II q corporate body
passes to Its assigns Or succe ssorg, ana
the opinion 81 j ustce Mat bews. II, an
3ldent ical case. IS quoted. N holding that
such: exc mption does not pass to such sue
icessorfS }s asst gu. {3 The court Iii ia sslng
supone$the case y a tSSi ssuo found y another,
ground for sust aiming the Judgment 81
tho CORPORATION Commission I tyhold that
when q he first mortgage was forcclosad
the orig gina comp VI ceased to sex ist, and
Z hat he = eW company VIII chs succeed ed III
derived ats vitality from section u 234 OF
the Cod pom the Nv hole case. S tho
court Esuzt alns Rth $jud gmen 3 the Cor
sporat Ion Commission. 81 nj VI sSf
81 Against the City. 81
In he case Of the tx Of II ichmond vs.
Gays sAdministrat Tor, from tho Law Il and
I0quity5 Court Of Richmond ,S5J Judge 4 j ohm
A. chnna n del ivers Il he opinion 81 the
court thinning 4, the Judgment sc n the
court below. ss This was d case In which
the personal represen tntlvc Of M IS. Irctfias
DE- n sough hit IA q recover damages h for
the8asph yxiation and death there from%ofi
plaintiff 81 estate, caused by the nlegcd
negligence of the aefendants city, in per-
uniting Illuminating gas manufactured
by the city to escape from It's main into
the room ~ here Mrs ia NJ vas sleeping,s
The a ppelaLts relied on two grounds Of
demurrer. m one III was, Ial legged that tile
gas B esca pei from the main Iii franklin
Street, and the second VI that It escaped
from the main IN governor Stree t. VIZ THE
court held that the instruction submitted
by the plaintiff was properly y refused,
and that the s5ud gIEent should BIZ Saf-
;tlrned III m sfs re 453j ff
iss Inatlc case Of the Richmond Passenger
and Power Company W., steger, the Sec
end d ppeara nee ,oG Il this case &s,lpon3@tle
docket herc was alSy erdict for theip plain
If, which the lower court re fused to set
nside .fly The III former judi nlcnt was ire
yersed owing to error IN the instructions
submitted. In I he second trial the ain-.
structions5 arc free from error, and the
plaintiff In error ass igl1s, as n ground
OF error, that the vedlct5is ngainstalth
evidence and nstuctions. fudge IIarrl-8
SOIL. I'll, his opinion IN the cas- Il holds
that the contention that the plaintiff was
guilty OF Scontrlbutory negligence cannot
he aimed. VI The case i is held in-i
yolved questions fof ia ct which the jury
alone might consider. The verdict As nc7i
cortlingly nh rmed X. and the plaintiff in
the original suit is TITLED to- recover
fk4s Iii the case OF the n orfolk Railway
and T ight n Compnn y VS.. y S ratleys from
the 4 Court sof Law fnnd chancery&o Of tllo
city or Norfolk, Judge Harrison wrotestlie
opinion Of the court, nff irnling tho Jul 81
jment of the TX worssy court; ~ his Ease
grew out or tile Injury O Herbert. Wesley
Eprntle Icy, a aeven-y ear I'D IL child, VINO
ignorantly picked ZIP u live wire OF i he
defendantfcompuny lying a cross tho pave
rnent I'm Berkl ey, W ! I'D ginent wa rel n
lered in sfnYor Ia the plaintiff for 1000,
subject #don1urrcr3Eto the owl dence, rlle
court fqulckly dlsmissea the demurrer hat
tile defendant company was no SshoWn8ttp
have been guilty Of negl igencc, Il holding
5that5Bthes common sense rule, res 4 T,sa.
Sloqutrur'' Tho evidence andd,lced was u ot
sufficient to- remove the Trcsuinption of
neg igence arising from III g accident Il II
self Various ASST gnuents OF error 4 ;lrn
considered, IS and dismissed as Invalid, \ ill
icludillg one That he damages allowed arc
excessive, The court loldp that \ n, Is nat
even Y suggested that The Jury were sri
tuated by pxejudc leo o. partial ty,N3 The
Judgment affirmed. lflgs Y Al u il
Circuit Court Reversed. N.
V In IIaryey Ys.l tho g Comm nwcalt I'll, 4 lle
court reyersos theE Circuit Court of Chat
lotteSrounty. Iii this case he court NOS
tees only the last assignment of error,
that the action ,of "a his 90 urti II In z re fys-
Ing 10 8set8 aside the verdict as contrurSi
i,,Ht AZ N ia ~