The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-09-17


4 the Prudential Fire INSURANCE Company
Is construed. Thht clause REQUIRES tic
person insured 10 thKe ali inventory OF
Hts stock or goods at least once II year,
and to keep n set Of books showing ptir-
ciiases ana suies, all OF which must be
locked Iii lii fire. proof safe at night, ana
whenever the building Insured Is not open
tor business
III this case the books kept BY Alley
IRE hhll to havd beet, il, Substantial COM
plinnce with tho iron safe Clause. 4 The
court says TINT II the books arc kept III
sucl, IL manner that, With tho assistance
OF those who kept them or understood
h The system, the amount of purchases ana
sales can be nsccrtnncd, and cash trans
actions distinguished from credit, It VIII
be sufficient. g3 ~
The holding Of tho lower court in tllis
rcspcct md IN anll others to which error
was assigned is held to have been cor
6rect,5and its Judgment iii favor Of Alley
Is affirmed
Dixon VS.. Paddock. ss.
Judge Harrison handed down the opil,-
ion Of the court In Dixon vs.. Paddock.
from the Circuit Court Of Wise county.
This suit grew out Of the settlement be-
tween tho partners of the affairs or tho
Dixon Paddock Lumber Company, which,
besides conducting 4 general lumbcrabusl-
ness had acquired and was operating
the iGladcville Railroad. Paddock brought
stIt,E charging that Johnf In Dixon IN
settling Ia their partnership accounts had
rendered u statement. which was not
ttrtle, and had fraudulently concealed q
Number ( OF important matters which
n,,to nv l1ct tlaInpn Mt.
and which would have produced diff
sfercnt result greatly to Paddock's i'd
vantage.
The court finds that Dixon concenling
from Paddock that he had made u con-
trnct in the name of the Dxon-P addock
Company for the esle Of the railroad at
S33, O0O and received s1,G1O$in cash on ac-
count, induced Paddock to agrees That
Dixon should take the railroad from the
firm at $4,000, and 1t Is held that Dixon
is liable to make good to Paddock the
loss he thereby sustained. Other frauds
are shown, such as the buying by DIXON
Of an engine and caboose for $3.50 for
,,sc on the Gladeville railroad, his renting
them to the partnership at $50 per month,
receiving s1,54O In such rents, and III the
settlement charging the engine ana ca.
,boosc as a liability OF the firm at $2,9Y',
and charging the firm with practically
the entire cost of salaries and Office eX-
penscs Of the Office at Ronceverte when
he carried on in tie same offices q pri-
vate competing business which amounted
to two-t thirds In volume Of the business
Of the entire office.
s. I The action Of the lower court In requir-
ing Dixon to account to Paddock In
thesc matters and It's findings are all
affirmed b. the Supreme Court.
Graves VS.. Scott.
IN another case, Graves VS.. Scott, Judge
Keith handed down an opinion reversing
the Judgment of the Circuit Court of
Giles county, holding that in suit for
malicious prosecution, the declaration
sufnclently .nNerred that the prosecution,
alleged to have been malciously insti-
tuted had been terminated, when 1t stated
that ut the place and time designated for
trial the defendants refused to be sworn
and give any cvldtHce touching the sup
posed crime charged in the warrant and
failed and refused to offeraand produce
When called upon any evidence to prove
the charge in the warrant; that the JUS
tice dismissed the warrant at the cost OF
the defendants, and caused the plalntiltl
to be discharged out of custody. fully
acquitted Of tho said supposed offcnse;
and that the defendants have not further
prosecuted the complaint. but have de-
serted ana abandoned the same, and the
complaint and prosecution Is now fully
ended. This decision overrules former.
decision Of the court in the case of Ward
w. Reason.