The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-01-25
-FOUR DECISIONS
ARE HANDED.D0WN
Supreme Court Of Appeals Re-
verses Danvillc Judge in
Labor Agent Case.
WHEN NO NEED OF LICENSE.
WHEN NO NEED OF LICENSE
Women's Right TO Will Away
Property-Falnous Charlotte
County Mill Dam Case.

No. is
Opinion day In the Supreme Court OF
Appeals yesterday brought out only fou,
| decisions
Perhaps the most interesting OF the
four was that by Judge Whittlc in the
case OF Watts vs.. the Commonwealth.
which came lip from the Corporation
Court of Danville. and is tho first to
| require a construction by the Supreme
Court of the revised tax laws.
Important Decisions.
The prosecution Of Watts in the Dan
vile court was. had under section i2s OF
the new tax bill.
Tho Nave Ryan-Curtis Construction
Company is corporation chartered under
the laws OF the State OF Ohio, and duly
licensed to conduct It's business OF gem
eraI contracting in this State. The COM
pany is engaged upon construction work
for the Southern Railway Company's new
doube-track line in Pittsylvanla county.
Watts was employed by tho company as
day laborer on its work, and rendered
such service as was required of him,
including the manual labor commonly per-
formed by that class OF employees on
work OF similar character. Tho cXigcn-
cies Of tho operation demanding add-
tional labor, Watts was sent to Danvillc
by his employer to secure it. He had
succeeded in hiring several laborcrs for
the company, and was endcavorlng to
induce others to enter It's service when he
was arrested and prosecuted and con-
victed of an alleged violation OF sec
ton 49,
Judge Wlittle, in his decision, says:
The single question presented by the
record for our determination Is. whether
or not the plaintiff In error was engaged
in the business OF the labor agent within
the meaning OF the foregoing statute, 1t
being admitted that he had no license.
The opinion concludes:
The differentiating features between
the two transactions of hiring laborers
by labor agents and by ones own agent
may be illustrated by the Instances of
purchase Of real estate through real
estate agent. whose business it Is to
negotiate sales for any one who may
choose to engage his services, with
whom and his patron no other con-
tractual relation exists, on the one hand.
and purchase by principal through
his own private agent, on the other.
From the former the State extracts a
license. but not from the latter. In our
opinion. the statute in question is. plainly
not susceptible of the Interpretation
placed upon 1t by the trial court; but
even if it were Of doubtful import, be-
ing a law imposing a license tax, upon
familiar principles. it would have to be
strictly. and most strongly
against the. State and In favor OF the
citizen. For these reasons the judg
ment must be reversed
Proceedings in the Superior Court
We're as follows:
Fentress VS.. Pocahontas Folving Club,
from the Circuit Court of Princess Anne
county. Writ OF error and submitted.
Bond. 500.
City of Richmond VS.. Harton. from the
Law and Equity Court of city of Rich
mond Whit of error refused
Winchester and Strasburg Railroad
Company. ct al, VS.. Commonwealth. from
the State Corporation Commission. Re-
hearing refused.
Saunderson vs. Witt Judge. Upon pc
tition for writ of prohibition. Writ de- |
MED.
Webhs trustee VS. Iyncs.bl.rg Shoe |
Company. Argued by a. +. King for !
plaintiff In error and M C. Manson IT., |
or defendant and submitted.
Lewis VS.. Palmer, ct ais. Partly ar
,ued by Richard b. Davis for appellant
and continued.
Next cases to be called: Armistead VS..
Kirby, ct ais; Davenport VS.. Davenport;
Ca, DINA Chemical Company VS..
Knight; Gatewood VS.. Garrett: Jordan's
ct ais, vs. Richmond
Home for Old Ladies'; Undertakes COM
nittee, ct ais, We. Moore and others. and
Norfolk and Western Railway Company
rs. Hickman, by, &c, being Nos. 81 to rs,
inclusive, on argument docket