The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-07-04

to death between the cog wheels OF tho
san washer, which was on the second
floor or level. There was no direct evil
dcnce as to how he came In contact with
the cog wheels and lost his life, but it
was claimed by the plaintiff that the belt
on the sand-wnslier was slipping, Ms It
sometimes did, and the boy, who had
been directed by the foreman OF the
buddlc to start the belt when 1t stopped,
was attempting to start 1t by catching
hold OF the Sill to which the roof was
fastened, swinging down and trampng
upon the belt with his feet, and that
while so engaged he fell or was thrown
between the cogs below. This mode OF
starting the belt. It was charged, was
dangerous and beyond the scope OF the
boys duty, and that he was not warned
OF the danger
1t Is held to have been error to admit
opinion or expert evidence as TO whether
the method OF starting the belt above
referred to was dangerous, because the
record showed that such mode OF start
ing the belt, especially by a child eleven
and a half years OF age. was manifestly
dangerous. and that jurors or men of or
binary intelligence generally would be
determine whether or not 1t was dam
gerous as the witnesses. 1t Is said, how
ever that the error was harmless.
Evidence admitted by5 the lower court
to the effect that the defendant COM
pany permitted other children working
about the buddle to ride upon cars which
brought ore from the mine, or TO go in
or near other dangerous places upon
the top OF the buddle, is held to have been
inadmissible; though II is said that It
was not error to permit the plaintiff to
prove that children were permitted by
the company to go, or that they went
with Its knowledge and without objec-
ton. into Or about the place where Tom
linson lost his life.
With reference 10 the degree OF care
due by the master to an infant en-
noyc of tender years. 1t Is stated that
1t Is much greater than Is due an adult;
but whatever its degree. 1t is ordinary,
care under all the facts and circum-
stances OF the case. An Instruction which
told the Jury that the law required Of
the master the highest degree OF re-
sponsibillty for the care and protection
OF an infant employe IS. therefore, held
to have been erroneous. In that t did
not correctly state the Law as to Inc
measure OF the masters duty.
A number of other assignments of error
are considered and overruled; but for
the errors stated above the judgment is
reversed and the cause rcmanded for a
new trial. 4.-,
DIVISION OF ESTATE.
Upon the death OF his mother. followed
shortly by that OF his infant brother,
r. Bowen Watts fell heir in 1850 to his
near Tazewell Courthouse OF 49, acres.
His father, John G. Watts. married again
in 1892, widow with four sons. all OF
whom came to live upon this fan ncc ana
wife all OF his interest in the farm except
l0l acres, which was conveyed to a trus-
tee for the benefit OF his creditors. From
the conveyance to his second wife the
entire property was in the exclusive pos
| session and control OF John G. Watts.
who enjoyed and appropriated to himself
the entire rents and profits
r. Bowen Watts brought suit by his
next friends and guardian for parti-
ton of the land and TO recover his share
the death OF his mother; and upon the
partition was assigned 2S4 acres. with
the residence and other buildings thereon.
After the death OF, his father. the suit
8. Watts. exeCutrix. and referred to a
commissioner to ascertain how much was
due r. Bowen Watts on account Of rents
and profits from the estate Of his father,
and from the defendants, Mrs. F. G. S.
Watts and her two sons, d. II. Smith and
]. 7. Smith. for their alleged use and
any Credits to which they were entitled.
1T Is over the report Of this commission
err and the action Of the lower court
thereon that the controversy In the case
OF Watts vs. Wattss executrix, before
the Supreme Court. arises, and in which
Judge Harrison handed down the opinion
Of the court. reversing the decree OF the
ii is held that the lower court properly
dismissed the bill as to the defendants
p; II. and y. T; smith; that John g..
Watts occupied the relation of de facto
OF his first wife until the date OF the
conveyance to his second wife. and as
such became liable to account for the
farm 6elonElng to his son; That Mrs
dian, Of R. Bowen Watts from the date
Of q the deed lee fr9m her husband Of his
whole farm and received the entire pro-
ceeds thereof; and that they must ac-
count for tcompound Interest upon r;
profits received by them, respectively.
whole estate.
anF sosst Z e SR"ss t %hch II asSe
lees are respectively liable. the annual
rental value of the .2s4 acres. with the
improvements, should be taken, and not
~Ss71yt " +liiSa tiuluu1 iCHtul Stliuc III LVc
whole farm; that the Circuit Court erred
y reducing the annual rental value Of the
2s4 acres from $l.4o0 to 1852 per annum,
b. but t, Il the amount Is loft open SO that tho
subject; that in the account Of John q.
watts. as do facto guardian. he should
- 10 100 1901, the presumpton being that, as
credit was intended as payment on ao-
count and not gift
IT Is further held that. looking at tho
cIrcumstaiIn nc Of the case, having in view
II was the, duty Of John G. Watts 10
support his infant child, and It was proper
to refuse to credit him for the support
and maintenance Of Complainant from
1880 to 1895, during which time he was II,
possession Of the entire farm; that there
Watts compensation for the support and
n ,nd1 Of cemplalnapt from 1895 10
sion Of the entire farm. but the amount
ther Inquiry by the commissioner as to
its, adequacy. IN 3.
should be recommitted to the commissions