The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-11
WRIT Of ERROR
IN MILL DAM CASE
Supreme Court Takes Action III
Noted Carse From
Charlotte.
NORFOLK & WESTERN TO-DAY
Appeal Case From Corporation
Commission Will BE Heard
BY High Tribunal.

In the Supreme Court of Appeals yes
terday n writ of error and superscdcas
was granted IN the case OF the Jeremy
Improvement Company vs. Common
wealth involving the removal OF an an
Client mill dam said to have flooded GER
tain public highways in Charlotte county
creating marshes and breeding noxious
disease and thereby endangering the
lives of the citizens OF tho community,
and OF visitors to the State experimental
farm, located nearby.
| The mill operated by the Jeremy Com
| pany, is situated at Lake Station, on
| Roanoke Creek. on the line OF the South
ern Railway. The dam stretches across
the creek three-quarters of n mile above.
1t was originally constructed in 1893 but
! the location has since been slightly
changed. The appellant points out that
during the hundred or more years of the
| existence OF the dam there was with one
exception manifested no disposition on
the part of the citizens to complain until
the present proceedings arose This one
exception was an Indictment brought In
1870, long unprecedented and finally dis
| missed
Upon complaint OF five citizens Of
| was recently called. and In the trial in
the Circuit Court. the Jeremy Company
was fined SO for creating public
nuisance, and 1t was ordered that the
dam lie cut down and removed The
contention OF the compliments was that
the dam was located near two public
| highways of the county as well as near
the experimental farm owned by the
state OF Virginia, and that its contln-
uance had permitted the waters of Ron
hcke Creek and mill pond to overflow the
adJacent land and also tho public high
way leadihg from Massingford TO Recess
Win ehe result that the land wa srender-
eded marshy and filled with noxious
weeds and putrid vegetation. corrnnt,nv
and injecting the air. causing malignant
iever. chills and other loathsome diseases
ana threatening the residents OF the COM
ihuhity and the visitors to the farm.
iHe attorneys for, the Jeremy Improve
men. Company are w. c. Darlington and
mcclure & Rely, of this city.
Tidewater Case.
| Ihe appeal of the Norfolk and Yves
! e es.i lealiWhy, from the decision OF the
corporation 30 Commission. allowing to the
.iuewater railway Company grade cross
| ing over the tracks OF tho appellants
near South Norfolk. VIII be argued in
me supreme Court to-day. Important
| questions of law involved have attracted
| considerable attention TO this case.
In It's appeal. the Norfolk and Western
! claims that the commission erred In hold.
| Ing that. under the law. one railway has
I nhcn1IJta n n a.
| the property of another railway company.
| without first lnstitiiting proceedings TO
| condemn the property right and thar the
4 crossing would not take any property
| essential TO the purposes OF the Norfolk
| and Western Railway. It Is claimed by
the appellants that the commission should
| have ordered an overhead crossing
wherever 1t was decided that two roads
should cross. this being the established
policy of the State. and all prescriptions
! being against grade-crosslngs
| The attorneys for the Norfolk and Wes-
tern, are Robert NJ. Hughes. SE,ppa Hun
ton. Jr., Lucian III. Cooke. and Joseph T.
! Doran
Opinions To-day.
Several important opinions may be rem.
/ dered by the court to-day, though this
Is by no means certain. 1t Is the regti-
lar opinion day, but being the first
/ Thursday in the session of the court, this
| opinion may not be handed down yet.
| The proceedings yesterday were as fol-
! lows:
Robinson vs.. Commonwealth, fully ar
svnd by IF. S. Collier. for the plaintiff
in error. and submitted.
Harding vs. Commonwealth argued by
T. ]. Downing and Jos. w. CHM, Jr.,
for the plaintiff in error and the Attorr
ney-G General for the Commonwealth and
submitted.
Next case to be called:
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
VS.. Tldewater Railway Company, being
| No. 1 on the Corporation Commission
i dncket and Rellennt VS. Lallhes, IIynrs