The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-01-27
lifts in error arc held liza bic for the sums
ALREADY stated lii each severa case. @a w
Richmond Ice Company

NxSC&SVlklkJQAysttai
81 In the case Of tho Richmond Ice Com
5paily VS.. n tho Crystal Ice Company. from
tho Circuit Court Of the city Of Rich
sno,d, the opinion or the court, written
by Judge y ohm "a. Buchanan, sustatns ana
faffirms the Judgment of the lower court.
i:8fS Tllis is the second time This case has
been before the appellate court, It having
been renlanded on account Of error. I'll he
case grows out Of tho dcr1oliti ion orr de-
structlon byS an ice gorge or q port on q E
the buildings and structures leased by t he
plaintiff in error from the defendant III
error. Because of this damage and de-
4struction5 Of property ased, the plain;
tiff in error claimed @ " set off Of $500
against tho demands OF the landlord COM
pany. There are several ass gnme ntsaef
error, all Of which are considered md
overruled. tho princi pa Il one being that OF
tho court erred n In re using rtaln In !;
structlons offered by the plaintiff & or ten
ant com ny, and subs ltuting an In
5structiong OF It's own The high her court
holds that the instruction given by he
court correctly stat o Z, 7 fe law 4 IN he
case. The questions of law and fact pre-
scented are exhaus lively consld ered In an
opinion Of fifteen u pewrittenS pages. The
lower courts udgment Is q ffirmed q ana
the case ended. i4s q
RI Railroad Ag ainst 7 own. ~
}iss IN the case Of tho 4 Norfolk and Western
Railway Company vs.. the Town Q e SUI =
folk, involving construc lon Of q section
OF the charter of the 81 Town o. suffolk
ana tho valdityBof an finance pa ssed In
pursuance thereof imposing g license
tax OF $50 on plaintiff In error for the
privilege Of conducting its business In
that town, the opinion Of the. court il
written by Judge Stafford 6. yvhttle. and
4aff1rms the Judgment of the circuit Court
of Nansenlond. The opinion in this case,
is ans3unusually ,yoluminous one, and is
characterized BY a detailed consideration
of the various contentious OF! the plain
tiff In error T i.5 81. " ' .5
sf$ After Quoting eflanguage Of the char-t
ter, the opinion states that the court Is
of opinion that the phra seology g! Of the he
charter In question m easures UP to the
requirement; that 1t IS stated in plain
and unambiguous terms that the State
has clothed with part Q e its sovereignty
this municipal corporal Ion lin the matter
of levying ia xes,. Ia
IN concluding Ills opinion, ] Judge Whit
Etle says: Tho tax imposed by the Sordl-8
nance Is a tax imposed upon the privilege
Sof doing business In theSi city, and lis
wholly different from q Pre- pertys taS.
1t Is simmaterial that the State taxes the
property OF the company on the ad .yal-
orenl system, The two subjects Of taxa a.
lion are wholly different, and both may
be taxed without being .obn oxious to the
objection that It is double taxation
Fredericksburg Reversed.
IN aIlloss VS.. the Commonwealth Judge
John a. Buchanan writes the opinion or
the court, reverses the 1IdgmenI q .ns
Corporation Court of Fredericksburg and
5dismisses the prosecution which Is I. the
occasion of tho appeal. 81 98
The question presented In this case
Is whether lSloss "a travelling salesman
for Manchester broom manufacturer,
II doing tho acts no did without q license
came within the provision Of the statute
with regard to peddling. lkloss wa 3 9
travelling salesman selling brooms VI Dy
Wholesale by sample The court, after
care full consideration Of tho methods ems ~
ploycd, says that the universal rue tnat
PENAL statutes are TO be construed Strictly,
except where otherwise proyid ed by sta ~
ute, applies with full force to a lctse
like the present. I<loss Is Il ceordingly
held to DO not guilty Of the charge q Of
{peddllng without q license, and the prose-
fcution a gainst him dismissed, 8 u ~
In Swift and Company vs. Wood ana
others, the opinion of the court, ellyered
by Judge George NJ Harrison, attlrms
the Judgment OF the Corporation Court Of
the city Of Newport News. This case
grows out OF the motion made by Wood
ana others to. the Corporation Court to
set aside and declare null and void a pre-
tended or alleged Judgment Outlined by
tho plaintiffs in error, Swift and Conn
many, March II, 1901, for s26s g. with In
terest. This Judgment had been obtained
on motion under the statute. Tho ground
{chieAy relied upon by Wood and others
for asking to have the Judgment annll!ed
was that The notice on which the iudg,
Snent was obtained had not been returned
to tho CLERK . office Within FIVE days after 81,
Its alleged service, as required by the.
statute. Plalntirs In error insisted that
tho return was within tho five days con-
ltemplated by the statute, The appellate
court holds that this question has been
settled inths State for many years by
the fdeclslonsof this cpurtSin he case Of.
iiIllrnblll 1; vs., Thompson. plaintiffs in
error: further contended that ono OF the
days was Sunday, and therefore not n
Judicial day, and cannot be counted IN
computing the time. This position 4 -
~ lleF OrlntnI,t ofH