The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-10

Is who thcrS or not the concede led facts IN
5thc case constitute = lations 81 N;
city, which ss &c =
ordinnnc &c IL d penal, one and lis here Tore
to be Construed strictly. i t fis8not Y, pc
EXTENDED fby6iinplicatio ton and must be Elim-
ited ,hs g cn &
G ates and Son fined3 BY y ustlce
sCrutchteld for obstrncting street IN II
the manner described In viola Ion Of the
the Hastings Court affirmed the judg ment
sof the Police Court. Tho sopinlo Of the
appellate colirt Freverses bot h he inferior
ousSopinons OF the CHEST court sof this;
and other State and 70 e the United States
/ Court, establis and Bmatntaining8 me ne
principle statutes nv, u %
old than construc ton tsel g It Jig founded {,
,i,I fors 81 y
8iss Vested IN the Se legislative. not the,
judicial q epar tment. NJ 81 t8
Quotes the Chief Justice. VA
opinion quotes Chic Justice Fuller II e
rs saying that there be Se
punished, sliis case must be plainly and
Enthusiastically within the statute. %5I II. this.
tanguage y Judge Whit tleG dds the follow v,
could & be cited to the same fleet tend
to illustrate the Jealousy with which
courts regard any substantial departure
ton. It's violation involves q most dam
gerous finnoyation. and places persons
accused Of crime at the mercy and Earbl-3
5tInry q iscrct ton, Of the Jud ges who may
chance to preside In the particular case.
The court proceeds to- consid der, and to
quote authorities on the two other kin
sdred principles of constructionsto be con-
sidered in arriving at IN correct interpre a.
fiOn thiS ordinance lmcIv.S5 that or
5noscriturS sociis and ejusdem generis.' =;
In stating the conclusion Of the5court,{
sohS setea hs
tx ofsenee eharged tN
the provisons ofl he ordinance und erl $con-}
lsidcratlon. The ordinance is plainly ms
tended to apply to Instructions and en-
croa chments on the streets Of ~ per ma
Snent chara cter,H and cannot t, ithout un-3
scope and meaning OF the Language used,
be made to embrace temporary obstruc-;
lions, suc CHI as are caused by the use Of
skids and similar q pplinncc ON ploycd In
3s.'If8 In tho Judgment OF thef City Coun-
ell the use made Of the streets in this
instance amounts to undue interfe r..
evil can be sremeiied by 1egs-
ilation. But the; courts must construe the
ordinance MS they find IT., and cannot ems
large its opera ton to meet the exit encies
of particular ca ses4 B5 3s sa II
Opinion Is Confirmed.
N IN the case u OF Drivers administrator
VS. tho Southern Railway. the opinion of
the court Is delivered by Judge Buchanan
and nftlrms the Judgment ofs the Circuit
Court Of Prince VIII liam county, from
which the case Ia appealed. vi z ii .,S
s5s Driver was o flagnlan Of a n Southern
Railway train and was X led In the ca-i
boose OF his train by n renr-end collision
with a train following. It&was claimed
TINT his deaf Ii was due to the negli gence
Gof the company. and exceptions 4 to sew,
era rulings of the judge of the trial court
galt relied on to secure n reversal Of the
Judgment of the trial court, which was
In favor Of theGdefendant. Tho; fatality
from which the case grew occurred prior
to the constitutional and a statutory,
Schangesa In the law Of master and SER
want, IT appears that Dr YER s. train was
DELAYED. rs alleged by reason n OF weakness
In the engine and that the train follow
Ing had Its caboose and other cars In
front OF the engine, being push led at the
time of tho collision, and that the col!
6lision and killing of Driver We're duo to
negligence on he part Of the company "a
The court a ter reviewing and dismiss-i
ing ms inynlid 81 the various H grounds OF
error assigned, holds that the nroximatai
cause OF the death ofsthe plaintiffs intes-j
tate, as clearly appea rs from the evidence,
was his own failure TO comply til rule
90 ofSthe defendant COMPANY, which made
AZ his duty under the circumstance to
q 90 back wit DANCER signals to Wa m a ny;
etrainalmoyng In the same direction. 81 II
! he had done this the accident would have