The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-19
SPEECH
BASIS FOR APPEAL
Petitioner Says Attorney III. Nj.
Smith Used Improper Ian
guage Before Jury.
CASES IN HIGH COURT
Suits Are Against Street Car
Comparative Petitions
Refused.

Two local cases were admitted tr
the supreme Court of Appeals yester.
day on writs of error. while at the
same line writs were refused in two
cases from other points in the State
Both of those granted were suits
asainst the Richmond street railway
owners. the company winning both
points.
One Of the suits on appeal is STYLED
the Richmond Passenger and Power
Company and Henry T. Wickham and
William Northrop receivers. against j.
a. Turptn, from the Circuit Court of
Chesterfield county. Turpin was In
jured in an accident On Hull Street,
in Manchester. on November 10, 1906,
through his horse being frightened by
a street car.
The reasons given for asking for
the writ OF. error by the petitioners
include a statement of improper re-
marks made by Harry NJ. Smith, Jr..
counsel for Turpin, before the jury.
and the failure of the court to In
struct the Jury to disregard these re-
marks. 1t Is stated that Mr.. Smith
said in effect that he n his client
had no trained corps of men to see
that corporations did not pay damages
for injuries. The claim is that 1t is
improper for Mr.. Smith to have de-
picted the plaintiff as a poor man and
the defendant as a rich corporation.
Turpin got a verdict for $4,000 dam
ages.
Richmond Case.
The other street car case is from
the Law and Equity Court of the
city of Richmond, having been in
stituted by Virginia ID. Leftwich, adj
ministratrix of Robert Hyde Leftwich,
deceased. against Henry T. Wickham
and william Northrop, receivers for
the Virginia Passenger n Power
Company, the Richmond Passenger
and Power Company and the Rich
mond Traction Company.
Leftwich received fatal Injuries on
August II. 1907, at the corner of Main
and Laurel Streets. He had boarded
a Main Street car eastbound, securing
a transfer to North Laurel. Al the
corner he stepped or foil or was
thrown from the rear platform, re-
ceiving injuries which resulted in his
Heath within a few hours. The COM
pany in its defense alleged negligence
and intoxication on the part of Left
wich.
The evidence tended 10 show that
the car had stopped for q short time
only. and hat other passengers had
alighted. The jury gave the plaintiff
a verdict for $4,000.
Delinquent Tax Suit.
One of the appeals. refused was that
of the Fideiit9 Wal Paper Company.
of Roanoke, against John T.. Irwin.
from the Corporation Court of the
city OF Roanoke. This involves the
title to a lot in that city. which the
lower court ordered to be transferred
from the company to Irwin.
The whole question depends on the
validity of a delinquent tax deed made
for the property. Irwin and others en-
tered a sort OF partnership in boom
days in Roanoke in 1890 to w and
deal in property. The lot in ques-
ton went by one year without the
taxes having been paid, and in due
course of time 1t was sold for de-
linquent taxes and bought in by "a
party, who later transferred it to the
wall paper company. The petition in
dictated that the Judgment might have
been influenced by prejudice against
the "land-grabbers' act"
The remaining case is that OF the
Baltimore. Chesapeake and Atlantic
Railway Company, plaintiff in error,
against George d. Mason, defendant In
error, from the Circuit Court of Ac-
comac county. 1t was also d~isapproved
by the court.
This suit was one for damages for
Injury to the plaintiff by falling
through a wharf at which he was un-
loading potatoes. A board in the
wharf. it is said. broke and Mason
fell through, sustaining serious In
juries. He gets damages to the amount
of $500.