The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-11-17
COULD USE TRACT
AS GRAVEYARD ONLY
A. y. BRADLEY FIGHTS CoNTEN
TION BEFORE SUP RENE
COURT OF APPEALS.

The right of the owner Of q piece
OF property to use II for any other pur-
vose than as a graveyard was in ques-
ton In the case of A. J. Bradley VS.
the Virginia Railway and Power Com
pany before the Supreme Court OF
Appeals of Virginia yesterday. when
the court granted writ Of appeal and
supersedeas to Mr.. Bradley, petitioner
from the decision Of the Circuit Court
OF Chesterfield County.
Mr.. Bradley brought suit in chan
Gerry against the railway company in
the Chesterfield court in February
1914, the decision of the court be-
ing against him. The petition filed
with the Court of Appeals set forth
that the petitioner Is owner OF a quar-
ter OF an acre of land in Forest Hill
Park. entirely surrounded by a tract
OF land Of 1o6 acres owned by the
Virginia Railway and Power Com
pany. The petitioner had surveyed and
marked off boundaries and had pre-
pared to erect on the property a
building. according to contract with a
third party.
Refused Permission.
Agents of the railway company pull.
ed up the stakes and informed the
/ third party that the company would
not allow the building to be erected
The petitioner thereupon sought per.
mission to transport materials across
the property OF the company and was
denied.
/ When the case came before the
Chesterfield Circuit Court the cour,
decided that the Bradley property
could be used only for burial purposes
and refused the injunction asked.
Bradley had purchased the property
from Mary E. P. Kerr. widow OF
Charles II. Rhodes. Rhodes was the
nephew Of Holden Rhodes. who had
been buried there. c. H. Rhodes, de-
sirous that the body of his uncle
should not be disturbed. had willed
that the quarter acre in Questi on
should never be used for any other
purpose than as a burial ground. blu.
Bradley, in his petition. AYERS that or
purchase of the property the body had
been removed and he had secured re-
lease from the obligation to use 1t AZ
a burial ground.
The court having decided that the
Virginia Railway and Power Company
was right In its contention. Bradley
appealed, with the result that the SUI
ipreme Court yesterday granted a wri,
/! OF appeal and supersedeas.
Blind Tiger Case.
That one Of the two witnesses
against him sought TO borrow money
from him and at various times had
taken his property. such as hymn
books, beer and SO FORTH" that the re-
| liability OF said witness was disprover
at the trial was the contention Sc,
forth by Lewis Robertson. convicted
of selling liouor In Danville without
| a license. in his appeal to the SUI
preme Court. which was refused yes.
terday.
Robertson had been fined 800 and
sentenced to nine days in Jail by the
Corporation Court of the city of Dan.
| Vile. Setting forth several reason.
why the testimony of w. l. Flintor
and J. II. Dalton should not have beer
accepted. Robertson attacked ths
value of the testimony of any detec
tive. He contended that the cour'
erred in refusing to give the jury ths
| following instructions:
| The court instructs the jury thai
! upon the trial of a criminal case the
F! testimony OF detective or one acting
as such ought to be considered by the
| Jury with more than ordinary eau
ton"
), 1t was upon the refusal Of the Dan
Vile court to give such instruction
that Robertson based the appeal which
was denied.