Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-06-25

the evidence, which was voluminous
and on some points conflicting. The
plaintiff at the time OF his marriage
was th.rtytwo years old and his wife
twenty-five. She lived with her par
ents near Richmond (Daying her board).
and was employed az Il stenoGrapher in
the city. They had known each other
for several years and had been engaged
eight months at the time of their mar
riage on April %. 1913. The family
OF the bride was not told of the we'd
ding until after the ceremony and
Just before the couple left for Wash
inGton to spend part OF their honey
moon. While on the train. Mrs. Walker
received telegram from her brother.
John Ratcline, which read Your moth
or is dying. | would advise you to re
turn TO my house" This telegram was
sent at the instance OF the sister. Alice.
after John had left his mother An
hour later Frank Ratclifre sent another
telegram of practically the same i'm
port regarding her mothers supposed
condition
CAME HOME on RECEIPT
OF TELEGRAM FROM BROTHER
Under the influence of the telegram
from John Ratcliffc" continues the
opinion, the plaintin and his wife left
the train at boswell. and obtained by
telephone some information from an
aunt and from another brother OF the
plaintiff. which indicated that the tele-
gram was a fabrication, but they de-
ciued. largely upon his Judgment and
recommendation, that it would be best
TO return and investigate the situation"
When Walker and his bride separated
Mt the corner of Seventh and Broad
streets on the evening of their mar
riase-Mrs. Walker 10 go TO her mother
while she wanted her husband TO
accompany her, he did not do 80 on the
advice or her brother
1t Is significant and it Is pertinent
IN this connection. that up to this mo-
ment OF separation there had been no
indication that she regretted her mar
riase or had any thought OF giving
up her husband" Judge Kelly com
ments. The record shows conclusivelv
mat her tthe mother'S) condition was
not. in fact. ana had not been at any
time. alarming"
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
NEW IN VIRGINIA
The court touches upon the indica-
tons OF ill-Will toward Walker mani
tested by members OF tho R,tcliffa
family OF Mrs. Walkers trip to pitts
| hurgh at the instance OF her brother
Frank; her refusal TO go back to her
husband in spite OF his appeals: and
finally. the determination OF the plain
| tiff to bring suit, having given up all
| hope OF reconciliation
The fundamental question here pre-
scented, as to the liability OF the inn
mediate family OF the consort in suit
:or alienation. as distinguished from
| the liability OF stranger, Is new in
Virginia, but has frequently arisen In
other Jurisdictions" Judge Kelly says.
and proceeds to quote numerous au-
lhorittes supporting the findings OF the
supreme Court in sustaining the lower
court in this case. The rights and
corresponding duties OF parent are
| much greater than those of a stranger:
and much stronger evidence is required
to maintain an action against n parent
and members of his immediate family.
| l.. .. Wendenburg and T. Gray Had
| don represented Walker: Meredith &
Cooke and j. Med. Wexford were at
| torneys for the Ratclifres.