The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-08-10

| when secured a bare majority Of the
members present and voting. This
! bill was placed on the calendar. and
MI Montague maue strenuous efforts
toward the end of the session to pro-
cure its passage. but in vain A reso-
luton of the House for the last week
or SO OF the session provided that
DIS might be called up out OF their
order and passed: provided there were
not as many as ten objections to their
! consideration. BY constant wntchfuI
ness mt all of the sessions of the House
mt this time, the attention OF mem,
ncrs hostile TO the bill wns rcpentedly
called TO the effort TO pnss IL. nnd
thus Its consideration, and pos,ib,y
It's passage, were prevented. 1t wus
proohpi! tue most hurtful and dan
Erous Dill introduced during the en-
House Bill No, 2s1, patron. Mr. Moo-
taeue; referred to Committee an
courts OF Justice. This was Xii
10 provide for remedy by motion. ar
Ter hfteen days notice. for an, ~,
Ihe purpose of this bill to encourage
ioose practice and speedy hearing was
manifest, and 1t was plain that II
Mouio De hurtful to the interests OF
az pubic service corporations 1t was
accordingly vigorously opposed. but
ny the same tactics pursued nv VI
Montague with reference tn Inf. co.,
p"rhtiNe negligence bill Just above
mentioned, II was reported fnyorabIx.
by the committee, but died on In. chi
endnr under similar circumstance -,
those surrounding the fate OF the 9TH
er BILL,
House Bill No. 40: patron. Mr. Mo-
tasue' referred to COMMITTEES on
Courts OF Justice. This was n hin ~
provide when demurrer shall nor lie
10 declarations in actions for torts
and was plainly intended as q reproof
TO the courts of appeals for Its do
cision in the Hortenstein case. II wa.
niso fully argued, and met with IN.
fnfe of the two other bills JUST above
mentioned.
In Mr. Montasue's advocacy or tbes.
bills, and II liz believed I'm their prem
hrhfion, he received the very active
assistance and cooperation OF Messr..
I. v. Meredith and 5. :. u. Patterson.
and as TO the demurrer bill, of Mr
Wyndhnm II. Meredith, There were
other members of the Richmond Bar
interested and sympathetic, but whose
activity was not manifested so openly,
House Bill. not numbered; patron.
Mr. Montague; referred to Committee
on Courts of Justice. This was a bill
prescribing when a clergyman or ply
sician or surgeon shall not be allowed
to testify as n witness without con-
sent to patients. This bill was so
monstrous that even MIR. Montague
failed to press IT in committee. and IL
was never considered 1t would he
most unjust TO charge any other mem
her of the bar with even partial re-
sponsibility for The Introduction OF
this measure. 1t was plainly aimed
at the street car companies. and was
the last OF the four hills introduced
by Mr.. Montague for that evident pur-
pose.
House Bill No. =; patron, Mr..
Owens; referred to Committee OF
Roads and Internal Navigation, This
was bill to require transportation
/ companies operating street cars into
and out of Incorporated cities to main
j tain a schedule of not less than df-
teen minutes during half of the day.
and not less than thirty minutes dur
| Ing half OF the day. and not less than
! thirty minutes during the remainder.
This bill emarated from Norfolk
sources, and would OF course have
practically bankrupted every street
car company in the State. The bill
was so outrageous that it's danger was
minimizcd. hut II vas not considered