The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-01-22
COUNTY
RESISTS ANNEXATION
Legal Talent Clashes Before Supreme
Court OF Appeals OF Virginia.

An annexation case OF much in
terest Is being argued in the Virginia
supreme court of appeals. 1t is that
OF the county of Norfolk against the
city Of Portsmouth. Norfolk county
has appealed from final Judgment of
held valid an ordinance promulgated
by the city of Portsmouth and which
provided for annexation OF portion
OF Norfolk county.
The case originally came up for
hearing before Judge r. II. billiard.
who was designated by Governor
Westmoreland Davis to sit In the pro-
ceedings, on June IS last The city
OF Portsmouth was the plaintiff and
the county of Norfolk and others were
the defendants
On March IS last the common
council of the city of Portsmouth.
pursuant 70 an act of the general
assembly of Virginia, approved March
10. 1904 adopted an ordinance re-
citing that IL was desirable to annex
to the city of Portsmouth certain ter
ritory in the county OF Norfolk.
The ordinance set forth the neces~
sity for. and the expedioncy. OF, the
proposed annexation and also the
tGf anu CoHdtkloHS anu
for the future management and i'm
provement OF the annexed territory.
notice, to which was attached a
copy of the ordinance in question, was
served on the commemorative attor-
ney and the board of supervisors of
Norfolk county. notifying them that
on May 20, 1918. the city of Ports
mouth would move the circuit court
OF Norfolk county to make an order
authorizing and declaring the annexa-
ton proposed in the ordinance.
'a4snl May .sss.stAssF, laaar ssea :.sxysssarsti
and the case was continued 10 June
10. leave being given the county of
Norfolk and other persons desiring TO
be made parties defendant to file their
answers Later on. the county OF
Norfolk filed it's separate answer: in
which it was denied that it was either
necessary or expedi~nt for the said
territory or any portion of 1t TO be
annexed to the city OF Portsmouth;
that there Is ample space within the
citys present corporate limits to ac-
commodate the increase in its popu-
lation and to provide for its growth,
and that the city is at present bur
is unable properly to care for and
develop even the territory at the
present time within it's limits.
The answer further sets forth that
the proposed territory includes large
acreage of farm land not necessary
or adaptable for city purposes: that
annexation would deprive the county
of large revenue derived by taxes
from the property and persons within
the affected territory, and that an
nexation would not benefit either the
territory or the people who live in IL.
but to the contrary would be dis
advantage to them In that additional
taxes, without corresponding benefits,
would be imposed upon them. The
prayer OF the answer was that an or
der be entered dismissng the motion
Of the city OF Portsmouth.
About thirteen manufacturing in
dustries, four railroad companies
namely, the Atlantic Coast Line. the
Southern, the Norfolk & Portsmouth
Belt Line and the New York, Phila-
delphia e. Norfolk--and numerous In
dividual taxpayers and property
owners appeared in opposition to the
PENDANT and filed their answers.
Trial began June IS. Judge Dill
lard presided. The court rendered its
decision and erf<ered a judgment an
nexing a greater portion of the ter
ritory asked for by the city OF Ports
mouth and setting forth the terms
and condition on which the territory
Snoulu De annexed 10 tnis JudSHe
OF the court the county of Norfolk
excepted on various grounds. The
county OF Norfolk assigns the follow
ing errors TO the Judgment OF the
court: "u) The court erred in an
nexing any portion OF said territory
because the evidence shows that 1t
was not necessary or expedient at this
time to do SO: t2) the court erred
in adjusting the rights of the city of
r. ha nrtx SNf
folk in that 1t failed to allow a proper
valuation for the school property in
cluded in the annexed territory and
failed to require the city of Ports
mouth to assume any portion OF the
bonded indebtedness Of the county of
Norfolk"
appearing for the appellants, and
John w. Harper and 8. Heth Tyler
for the appellees.