The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-02-03
SEVEN OPINIONS
HANDED DOWN.
Supreme Court Of Appeals Con
firm Decree of City Chanccry
Court.
JUSTICE GOES TO PRISON.
"a Contract for Sale OF timber
Procured BY Fraud Declared
Fl Null and Void.

on account Of the Inauguration of Gov
ernor Swanson on Thursday. no OPINIONS
were handed down. The Supreme court
OF Appeals. however handed down sew
eral important opinions on yesterday,
one OF which was an appeal from the
Chancery Court Of Richmond.
rhe CAGE of Bcllcnot vs.. Iuubc's exccil
tors, in which judge Harrison delivered
;he opinion. arose in u controversy over
IL party wall between the buildings NoJ.
40 and All West Broad Street.
This property was owned in is62 By Rob
srt Elicit, who on the 9Th OF November
IN that year conveyed seventy-iwo feet
fronting on the southwest corner OF
Broad and Monroe Streets TO Greed
Thomas; twcnty-nine feet front iinmedi-
Atciy on the west OF The Thomas lot to
NJ. Nenzcl, described Us being bounded
On the west by the property that day
conveyed 10 S. ID. Alternating. and thirty
pne feet on the west OF Nenzcls proper
~ to s. ID. Alternately, described as be-
ginning 10i feet from tho west line of
Monroe Street. and bounded on the east
by the property That day conveyed 20
Nenzel. There was a double brick tenc-
rnent on the lot covered by these two
last mentioned deeds and by the convey
Hnces one Decaule the property uI .ScTIei
md the other the property OF Abernathy.
In deeds made ny s. p. Alternately and
subsequent grantors the property convey
nd by them is described MS beginning at
the center or the partition wall between
IL and tho adjoining tenement on the
east Frances Bcilenot bought the prop
erty in court snie. and the deed 10 her
from the commissioner omitted the de-
scription IN previous deeds and at the
OF the partition wal between this
and the adjoining tenement OH the east
though tile DEGREES of sale and confirming
the sale contain that description.
The Supreme Court holds that this wall
between the icner1ents was Il party wall;
that Lanba. who acquired the property
on tho east OF the Belleno, property.
pulled down the old house and ran the
partition wall up higher In order to con-
struct a two-story brick storchouse. IN
thc use OF the party wall did not exceed
his legal rights with respect thereto. and
did not deprive appellant of any portion
OF her full rights and easements therein
or do her any damage OF which she can
complain. and that the decree properly
adtudged. the old party wall being in
sufficient to support such . building rs
she contemplates building on res lot,
that appellant has the right 20 pull down
the old and erect new party wall. At
her own risk and cost. OF greater, width
and height provided that ;he rights
OF the appellecs u.aube's executor, &c.
IN and to the new wall shall not be in
creased or diminished ny such recon
structiou. and provided further that 40
part OF the new. wall shall occupy
greater portion OF the land OF appelces
than the old party wall now occupies.
'rhtrc Is no error found In the decree
appealed from and II is affirmed.
Bellnot's Case.
In the case OF Lee VS.. Patiilo. from the
Circuit Court of Nottoway county. Judge
Whittle delivered the opinion.
The case came before the court as ar,
appeal from decree Diminishing the bill
in suit in equity. brought by Lee to re-
scind contract made with Patiilo. on
the ground OF fraud.
The facts III the case are that Patillo
secured from Lee authority to sell the
standing timber of sii acres of land in
Nottoway county, for $2.ep.
After some time Patillo approached
Lee and told him that the price was too
high. but that he thought he could get
$500 to which price Lee agreed. Patillo
did not dispose of the timber, but again
approached Lee. telling him fiat he could
get $500 for the standing timber, and
upon Patillo assuring Lee that he would
secure the best price possible for the
timber Lee signed a contract authorizing
Patillo to dispose of the timber for S1.20o.
Instead Of selling for sl.2D. Patlllo
made q secret agreement with Cobb and
Robertson to sell the timber for 5000 OF
which he Gatillop was to receive $500
and accounted to Lee for $1,000. telling him
that sl,20o was the price received.
Lee later discovered that there had
been secret agreement, and brought
suit to vitiate the contract.
The court holds that the contract is
void by reason of the bad faith of the
defendant PatilIoy. and orders that Cobb
and Richardson pay the $1,000 to Lee, less
$50 commissions.
Justice of Peace.
II, the case of Charles II. Robinson the
Warwick county Justice of the peace, CON
yicted in Warwick Circuit Court of en-
bezzlement and sentenced TO serve one
gear in the penitentiary, the Supreme
Court sustains the judgment of the trial
court.
Robinson was a justice of the peace of
Newport magisterial district, which hor-
ders Newport News. On August IA. 1904
he issued warrant on complaint of John
n. Williamson, acting chief OF police of
the county, for Charlie Sacriensce. charg-
ing him with creating, a nuisance by
bathing in Il nude condition in James
River. between Dawson City, and '.ISlon-
dixie, in Warwick county. The warrant
was executed and sacriensce deposited s.
as security for his appearance on the
next day 0Monday). Upon his failure to
appear the Justice entered fine against
him OF 80; and it Is this money he was
convicted OF n,isapproprlating.
Judge Keith handed down the opinion
of the court, Tre shows that under sec
'saton 72S of the Code, the duty of Justice
of the peace, In the matter of tho dis
position of fines received by him. is fixed
4. e., lie must pay tho same. together with
the costs, within thirty days. to the clerk
of the court of his county or corporation.
BY that statute he forfets twenty dollars
for failure to make such payment. But,
1t Is said, he was not prosecuted under
that section, but under section 37l7, which
provides for the punishment OF an officer
having custody of public funds. for know
ingly misusing or misapproprlating them,
and the Indictment based upon section a7l7
was therefore sufficient.