The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-02
COURT POSTPONES
FRANCHISE SUIT.
r., f. & P. Case Goes Over to
November Term by
Agreement.
SETTLEMENT is EXPECTED
Lambert Case, to Be Argued To
Day, Involves Rights of
Richmond.
SETTLEMENT is EXPECTED

The Virginia Supreme Court OF Ap-
peals yesterday convened for the
March term with all of the judges eX-
cept Judge Harrison in attendance.
The court continued the case of the
Commonwealth against the Richmond,
Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad
Company to the November term. The
case involves the suit brought by the
| Auditor OF Public Accounts to secure
payment Of the franchise tax assessed
by the Corporation Commission The
| railroad claims to be exempt from tax
| alton.
Several similar suits are pending In
the Circuit Court of the city of Rich
mond, and by agreement test case
| was made out and taken to the Court
| of Appeals. where it has once been
4 fully argued. At the last term, how
| ever, the court directed that 1t be re-
argued at time when all of the judges
could be present. The pending negotia-
| tions between the state and the Rich-
| mond, Fredericksburg and Potomac rel
alive to a new charter may result in
| an amicable adjustment and the mat
| ter of back franchise taxes may be set
! tied out of court
Herr City Cnse To-Dny.
| The first case in call on the argu-
ment docket is the appeal OF the city
| of Richmond against Lambert and
others, to be argued to-day. The case
has once been before the Court of
Appeals. Lambert brought suit in the
City Circuit Court, claiming injuries
from falling over an obstruction in the
street, alleging negligence on the clty's
part. A Henrico county jury gave him
! verdict. Since number of similar
| suits have been instituted, the city Is
| making test case to determine how
| far it is responsible for injuries to
! persons who may fall over minor ine-
qualities in the streets. Should such
a liability be sustained the city will
| have no option except to order the re-
| moval of all distractions, such as steps
| leading into yards and houses show
cases. signs, area ratings, protecting
entrances, horse blocks. stepping
stones, and in fact everything over
which some citizen might trip himself
and then claim that the city was re-
sponsible Certainly no negligence on
tho part of the city could be shown by
an injury from an ordinary curostone
or tree box, regarded as necessary parts
cS the Improvement of streets. The
city also contends that it should not be
! expected TO keep newly opened streets
in the outlying section in the same
\
more highly improved sections.
Il Argument Heard.
Other proceedings in the Supreme
,Court yesterday were a s follows:
Danville and Western Railway Com
pany VS.. Lybrook ct ais. by, etc.
+ argued by Eugene Withers for appel
lants and John w. Carter for appenees
and submitted.
Grinels VS.. Daniel. on the privileged
docket: argued by Robert E. Scott 70
appellant and Fl. T. Lewis for appel
lee, and submitted
3 Next cases to be called
City of Richmond VS.. Lambert ct al
: Turner's Administrator VS.. Citizen:
Bank of Norfolk ct ais.
Shea Realty Corporation VS.. Pag
!, and Taylor
$ Ponds Administrative VS.. Norfolk
: and Western Railway Company.
Whitehead, by, ETC., VS.. Cape Henr
Syndicate ct ais.
y City of Richmond VS.. Murray ct all
Copperthite VS.. Loudoun Nationa
!, Bank ct ais.
= Adamson's Administrator VS.. Norfol
: and Portsmouth Traction Company