Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1905-03-17
COURT OF APPEALS.

OPINIONS were rendered Yesterday Ol
the Court of Appeals in these cases:
Oriental Lumber Company vs.. Blades
Lumber Company, from the Court Of
Law and Chancery OF city Of Norfolk
reversed,
Postal Telegraph Cable Company VS..
Umstadter, from the Court Of Law and
Chancery Of city of Norfolk; affirmed.
Taylor vs.. Taylor, from the Circni,
Court OF Norfolk county; reversed.
w. Harrison Blair VS.. Security Bank,
from Law and Equity Court, city OF
Richmond; reversed.
The opinion embodying the decision
of the court in the case of TAYLOR VS..
Taylor is most interesting, and presents
case very rare in Virginia courts. The
case came from The Circuit Court Of
Norfolk county, before which, by writ
of habeas corpus, n Thomas Taylor
sought to recover the possession of bis
two children, little boy and baby
girl, who, at the time the proceedings
were begun, were two years and three
months old and three months OF age,
respectively. The couple were mar.
ried in April, 1900, Taylor being
at the time twenty-one years OF
age. and his bride only seventeen. On
the evening OF November z. 1908, when
Taylor returned to his home in Cape
Charles, he found his wife had gone,
taking with her their two children. He
learned that she had gone 20 her
brothers. home in HunteTsyille, suburb
of Norfolk. He went in a day or two to
see her, and entreated her to return home,
but she refused to do so, and he alter
yard renewed the invitation through
his counsel, but without avail. The
lower court refused his prayer, and he
appealed. In deciding the case, the
supreme Court expresses the hope that
reflection will satisfy the respondent
that her own happiness, and, above al,
the welfare of her children imperatiyely
demand that she should accept her has.
bands invitation and return to the COM
tort and protection OF his home; and
with the view OF bringing about this
reconciliation, the case is remanded TO
the Circuit Court, with dire ctiOn to en-
ier an order requiring the prompt de-
livery of the elder OF the children,
William Thomas, to the father. As to
the younger child, Ella Charlotte, the
case is directed to be continued for six
months, and, if within that time the
wife returns with the child to her hus-
bands home, the case will be dis
missed but if, at The end of that time,
she has not done 90, an order will be en-
tered requiring the immediate delivery of
that child to the father, if he shall de-
sire it.
The court holds that the statute i'm DOS.
ing penalty upon a telegraph company
for failureio Hfaithfull y and impartially"
transmit message, when applied to a
case where a message to be delivered to
a person in another State was never dis
patched, is no encroachmeDt upon the
power given to Congress to regulate COM
merce between the States. This question
was brought before the court 10 the case
of Postal Telegraph Cable Company VS..
Umstadter, from the Court of Law and
Chancery ofthe city of Norfolk, in which
j. NJ. Umstadter recovered judgment
for 500 against the telegraph company
for not transmitting message delivered
10 a messenger boy ofthe company, upon
one of its blank forms containing the
usual conditions, and to be transmitted
to a person in the State of New York.
Judge Buchanan writes the opinion Of
the court, affirming the Judgment of the
lower cOurt