Virginia gazette. [volume] (Williamsburg, Va.) 1893-192?, 1910-03-31


soon dici.
THE Appeal.
The unfortunate mans admir.s,ra-
trix lrou-n. suIt for damages AGAINST
the railroad. but The Circuit Court ot
RockhrIlct sustained o. demurrer to
the declaration. which put the plln-
fIm Out 90 court. The appeal. hove
ever. has resulted in reversal anu
the case is rcmaroed Tor "a second
tr.aL
Vie r.sf ~ the case IS the extent
e. which the Norfolk and western is
responsible. under the circumstances.
FOR the care and protection ~ the lli-
fated operator.
Tn its opinion the court says.
When the defendant found that % had
carried him beyond his point of des-
sination. So had the right 20 put Nun
of the train. though ~ 10 were negN-
gent tn carrying him beyond his sta-
zion 10 would have been its duty Co
return h.m 90 that point But Dc 10
knew that ne was IN helpless. ire
spouslble condition in putting the man
or it should not have exercised its
lawful right 20 remove az the place
and the ume and under circumstance
where pc would be exposed 20 great
hazard.
WbsrfaEe Case.
Ia The case OF Grinels VS.. Daniels
from tht circuit Court or MidnleseN
80 rerasnoed 20 the trial court foi
such remedy and further censidcratlof
Dsnieis iessed 4 piece OF land. frsut
INK on thv Eappahannock River. IRON
parties iu Mid0leseA county. Ann o-t-
wharf thereon. The Eeucral puon'
was given gree ingress and esress
Daniels later engaged Ia The nsh an,
oyster emo crab packing business or
the property. which had been leases
for wharf purposes, and 20 this ne DC
Grineis owned AID operated stor
90 the bank OF the river. ao.1 ceAt .
81 the wharf. aud ne entered an Oh
lection 10 "a stores being operated %
ben Ieasel f0r specific purpose
The case was heard IN the Clrcui
Court OF NiddleseN. the decision oein
decision handed down today favors "a
contention ~ Grlnels.
Wants HIS Money Rt Once.
The Road Board % Norfolk count
today Med ia The Court OF Appeals %
answer Co the petition of &c IL Kirk
who prays that the board may oe mar
damusec into paying him certal
claim.
has been duly recognized, out SAYS th,
a. this time u Is without FUNDS Ia 81
Al ne very latest. however. IL vi
have the necessary money BY July. u
der the circumstances. it declines 20 q
sue The desired warrant which kir'
The board maintains that % IS und
no obligation TO pay immediately az
hawked about
Petitions for Appeals, etc.
sutherland vs. Enswiler. Circu
Court OF Shenandoah county. Writ
error and supersedeas. Bond 500
Carpenter rs Phillips II ais Ci
cult Court OF Brunswick county. A
peal and supersedeas- Bond 500
Harris rs. Harris Executor ct a
Circuit Court Of York county.
peal and supersedeas Bond 500.
Johnson VS. Commonwealth. O.
cult Court OF Westmoreland count
Writ Of error and supersedeas-
bond.
Portsmouth Cotton oil Rehni
Company rs. oliver Refining Cor
pany. Circuit Court OF Norfolk cOu
ty Writ 81 error and supersede'
Bond $500.
Bachrach vs. Bachrach. Giro
Court OF city OF Roanoke Apo
and supersedeas Bond $500.
smith Ell ais. VS.. Northern Ne
Mutual Fire Association Gre
Court o. Nortnum berland coun
Writ OF error and supersedeas- 30
$3.50.
Robinson ~. Commonwealth. Hu
ings Court 80 city OF Richmond W
OF error ana supersedeas. No DO
Briggs et ais vs.. Watkins et
Court OF Law and Chancery OF {
OF Norfolk. Appeal Bond $500.
Thornton ys Commonwealth. {
cult Court OF Charlotte county. "
OF error and supersedeas. No bon
Portsmouth, BerkleY and Sun
Water Company vs. City OF Pc
mouth. Hastings Court OF city
Portsmouth. Writ OF error and
persedeas. Bond $500.
Armintrcut ct al. va. Armintro
Legatees. Circuit Court or RockI
ham county. Appeal and suppressed
Bond S2e0.
Cabin Branch Mining Company
Hutchinson's Administering Cir
Court OF Prince William county.
OF error and supersedeas- Bond
coo.