Volume 25 — Virginia Reports

These were two actions on the case, brought in June 1868 in the Circuit court of the town of Danville, and afterwards removed to Richmond, by James B. Pace against the town of Danville, to recover interest due upon two certificates of debt issued by said town and purchased by said Pace.

Thomas Rerguson, an old citizen of Rynchburg, died on the 8th day of Januar}' 1870. He left a widow about sixty-five years old, and two daughters-, and the children of a deceased son, some of whom were of age,,and others were minors. One of his daughters was married to C. W. Statham, and the other to John Otey Taylor. One of his granddaughters was married to Reroy S. Edwards, and another, Relia S., was single at his death, but soon afterwards married Thomas R. Statham.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Chesterfield county, brought in March 1856, by Robert Smith and others, the children of Mary C. Smith, and grandchildren of William Womack, against Wilkins Hall, to recover from Hall a negro woman named Martha and her children. The plaintiffs claimed that their grandfather, William Womack, had by his will left the slave Martha to their mother, Mary C. Smith, for her life, and at her death to her children.

These were actions of covenant in the Circuit court of the town of Danville, brought by Berryman Green, administrator of Morris Pollock, deceased, one against William T. Sutherlin, and the other against A. S. Buford. Both actions are founded on the same award. The defendant, Sutherlin, filed a plea, denying that a valid award had been made by the arbitrator, to which the plaintiff replied specially ; and to this special replication the defendant demurred.

D. Humphreys was the duly authorized agent of the Eife Association of America, (a foreign insurance company,) for the city of Norfolk ; and this company had complied with the provisions of the laws of this state applicable to such companies, and had paid the state license tax therein required.

This was a bill filed in May 1871 in the Corporation court of Alexandria, by Anthony Moran against George W. Brent, trustee, and others, to enjoin the sale of a house and lot in the city of Alexandria, under a second deed of trust.

Samuel Miller, of the county of Campbell, died on the 27th of March, 1869. He had never been married, and his only brother had died before him. He left a very large estate, both real and personal. His real estate was estimated at $75,000, and his personal estate, consisting almost entirely of public bonds, was appraised at $1,-250,150.92.

In September 1870 John Hubbard filed his bill in the County court of Patrick county, to enjoin a judgment for $1,000 and interest, which had been recovered in that court by Isaac Adams ag-ainst himself and William G. Price and Jonathan W. Hubbard, as partners. The bill alleged that the plaintiff was not a partner with Price and Jonathan W. Hubbard, and was no party to the contract upon which the action at law was brought.

This was an action of ejectment in the Circuit court of Patrick county, brought in August 1869 by Hardin W. Reynolds against Christopher C. Nowlin, to recover a tract of sixty-four acres of land lying in that county.

Goolsby & Rector, partners, composed of Robert Goolsby and James M. Rector, made their promissory note for eight hundred dollars, dated January 20, 1861, payable six months after date, to John Ij. Saunders for value received. By an endorsement upon the said note, dated July 20th, 1861, said Saunders assigned it to G. W. St. John, for value received.

This was a suit in equity, brought in February 1871, in the County court of Taze-well, against Sterling F. Watts and Jane M. his wife, and E. C. Fudge, her trustee, to subject the life estate of said Watts in certain lands mentioned in the bill, to satisfy a judgment confessed in the clerk’s office of said court by Watts at the suit of the plaintiffs, for $394, with interest from the 9th of January, 1871, till paid, and costs $6.03.

In July 1868 Thomas H. Gillespie filed his bill in the Circuit court of Tazewell county, in which he set out, that in December 1860 he sold and conveyed to A. Rullen Hendricks a tract of land containing two thousand and thirty acres, lying in the county of Tazewell, for the sum of $22,600, of which $18,000 was unpaid, and a lien therefor was reserved in the deed, a copy of which he filed with the bill.

This was a suit in equity in the County court of Pulaski county, brought in June 1871 by S. D. Saunders, to subject certain real estate in said count3r, to satisfy a judgment which he had recovered in that court against John S. Rwart.

<p>1. Liability of Surety — Effect of New Contract by Principal.† — it is settled law that a surety is entitled to he relieved from his liability to pay the debt of his principal, either in toto or pro tanto, as the case may be, if the creditor, without the consent of the surety, make a new contract with the principal, founded on valuable consideration, to postpone the day of payment of the debt for a certain period, however short, beyond the day on which it was to be paid by the terms of the contract on which the surety was liable; or if the creditor, without the consent of the surety, release any lien which he may have on any property of the principal for the security of the debt. In the first case, the relief of the surety is in toto, without regard to the extent of the damage actually sustained by the surety by reason of such new contract, or whether any such damage was sustained or not; and in the latter case, being in toto or pro tanto, according as the value of the property released was as much as, or less than, the amount of the debt.</p> <p>2. For the liabilities and duties of a surety, and the right of the creditor to enforce his debt against both principal and surety, or either, see opinion of Moncuue, P.</p> <p>3. Return of Sheriff — Effect as Evidence.‡ — A sheriff endorses a return on an execution in his hands: Levied on the following; property, together with other executions, to wit: one negro man, George, &c.. naming a number of negroes, horses, &c. V S .VI. He afterwards endorses on the execution: This execution held up, and property not sold, by direction of F M. V S M, S. S. 0. F M was the creditor entitled to the money. This additional return is not even prima fade evidence against F I'-I of the fact it states.</p> <p>4. Same -Same — Where Extra Official. — Where process is returnable process, if the officer make return of theperforinance of acts beyond his duty under such process, such return will be invalid as to such parts, and will not be evidence; though the addition of such parts will not render the whole return void, but it will be good to the extent he was authorized to make return,</p> <p>*5- Testimony of Sheriff. — CJpon a bill by surety against the creditor, to be relieved, on the ground that the creditor had authorized the sheriff to release the property levied on under the execution, the creditor answers and denies explicitly the allegations of the bill in this respect. The sheriff is a doubtful witness to sustain the bill, and though he testifies that the creditor directed him not to sell, he not being sustained by strong corroborating circumstances, relief should be denied.</p>

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Smyth county, brought by C. J. Merewether against H. Dowdy, to enforce a lien reserved for $400, part of the purchase money of a house and lot in the town of Marion, sold and conveyed by Merewether to Dowdy on the 3d of December, 1862. The bill states the sale of the house and lot at $1,000, and that $400 of the purchase money was to be paid twelve months after the 3d of December, 1862, for which Dowdy executed his bond.

Dewis Harvey, of the county of Roanoke, died in 1842, intestate, leaving a widow and twelve children. In August 1842 the dower of the widow in the lands of he late husband was laid off and assigned to her by commissioners appointed by the County court of Roanoke, and she held the land until her death in 1864.

In March 1869 Charles R. Cocke instituted his suit in equity in the Circuit court of Washing-ton county, against William S. Minor, trustee of his wife Rucy M. Minor and their children, C. Derrick and R. Tí.

In Eebruary 1869, Abram Penn and others, heirs-at-law of George Penn, deceased, filed their bill in the Circuit court of Carroll county against Eielden E. Hale, to set aside a deed made by the clerk of the County court of Carroll to the said Hale for a tract of land in said county, as land sold in 1860 for the delinquent taxes of 1858 and 1859.

<p>1. Fire Insurance—Material Misrepresentations.—In a case of insurance upon property, when the insurer is induced to enter into the contract through a misapprehension as to a material matter occasioned by the conduct or declarations of «the assured, he is entitled to be released, whether the misrepresentation be produced by fraud or innocent mistake.</p> <p>2. Same—Same—Investigation by Agent.—When an insurance company not relying upon the statements of the insured, sends its own agent to examine the property, and thereupon issues the policy upon the faith of his representations, the insured is not responsible for a misdescription of the property, however material, though inserted in the policy and constituting a warranty; unless there was a withholding of information by the insured incompatible with good faith and fair dealing.</p> <p>3. Same—Same—Same—Bona Fides.—When the agent of an insurance company makes an examination of property to be insured on behalf of the company, and inserts in the policy a misdescription, based as well upon that examination as upon the representations of the assured, then if the mis-description by the insured was not bona Me, or if its effect is to induce the company to issue a policy which it would otherwise have rejected, the company will not be responsible for the loss. But if the misdescription was bona Me and immaterial, the insured may recover; though, according to the policy, the description constitutes a warranty.</p> <p>4. Same—Authority of Agents.—An insurance company establishing a local agency, must be responsible to the parties with whom they transact business for the acts and declarations of the agent within- the scope of his employment, as if they proceeded from the principal.</p>

This was a suit in equity commenced in the Circuit court of Bland county, and afterwards removed to the Circuit court of Wythe county, brought in April 1869 by Gordon C. Thorn against Robert W. Har-man and N. B. Stimson, to rescind a contract for the sale and exchange of lan d made in March 1858, between said *Thorn and Harman.

Fugate Clark died in 1826, having made his will, by which he gave to his widow one-third of all his real and personal estate after the payment of his debts; and after some small legacies, he directs the balance of his personal property to be equally divided among his eight children, and the lands equally divided also: “The residue of my property, which I give to my wife, at her death I wish equally divided. ’ ’ Charity, one of the daughters of Fugate Clark, married William…

*William Kenny, of the county of Carroll, died in 1851, leaving a widow and six children, and leaving a will which was duly admitted to probate ; and his sons, Robert and William Kenny, who were named executors, qualified as such in the County court.

King’s salt works, situated in the county of Washington, being owned by a great many persons having different interests, a bill was filed in the Circuit court of that county by John D. Mitchell and others, part owners of the property, asking the court to appoint a receiver for its management.

On the 18th of December 1862, Peyton G. Hale executed a bond in the penalty of $3,250, with a condition that whereas the above bound Peyton G. Hale has this day bargained and sold unto John Walsh two hundred and sixty-nine acres of land, more or less, and known as the tract of land called Knob Fork, that P. G. Hale purchased of Samuel J. Bourn, and bounded by the deed that said Bourn made, to Peyton G. Hale; and the said John Walsh has paid in hand two thousand dollars and…

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Russell county, brought by Henry Dickinson against Henry J. Dickinson, Stephen Banner and George Banner, late partners under the name and style of H. J. Dickinson & Co., upon a note for $800, signed in the firm name and bearing date March 9th, 1860. The writ bore date the 30th of May 1870, and was returnable to the July rules; and at this rule day a conditional judgment was entered.

T This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Shenandoah county, brought by Daniel Miller & Co. of Baltimore, against John Bowman, Jr., as maker, and five other persons as endorsers of a negotiable note for $3,048.75. The note bore place and date, “Rockingham Co., Va., March 20th, 1869,” and was made payable at the “First National Bank of Harrisonburg, Va. and was protested for non-payment.

*This was an action for slander in the Circuit court of Albemarle county, brought by Zachariah Collins against George W. Dillard. The slander charged is, that Dillard spoke of Collins as follows; “He and all his sons are horse thieves, and make their living by that means, and that they frequently harbored that kind of men.” The defendant pleaded “not guilty, ” and also a special plea of justification ; on which issues were taken.

This was a motion in the Circuit court of Rockingham county by Jackson Martz, the nominated executor, for the probate of the will of Dorilas Martz, deceased. The heirs of Dorilas Martz were summoned, and appeared and opposed the probate.

In January 1870, Abel Gibbons filed his bill in the County court of Rockingham, in which he alleged that, on the 4th of April, 1860, James M. and H. M. Iyofland sold and conveyed with general warranty to D. Armentrout four hundred and eighty-eight acres of land, lying in the county of Rock-ingham, in consideration of $23,500; of which $7,833.33 was paid in hand, and the balance to be paid as follows, to wit: $2,000 annually on the 1st of April, 1861-62-63-64-65-66-67, and…

This was an action of debt in the Circuit court of Frederick county, brought in April 1870, by the Bank of the Valley for H. G. Rant, receiver, against James Marshall, as endorser upon two negotiable notes, amounting to $1,100, and costs of protests, $5.56. On the 17th of June 1870, the defendant pleaded payment, with notice of set-ofi;; and filed with his plea notes of the bank to the amount of the debt.

This was an action on the case in the Circuit court of Augusta county, brought by Joseph T. Mitchell against George F. Hoover and Robert G. Bickle, to recover the amount which Mitchell had paid as endorser of a note made by John D. Fairbairn, and on which the defendants were also endorsers. The plaintiff charged that the defendants were to endorse the note before him, and had fraudulently placed their names after his on the paper.

*By deed bearing- date the 21st day of July 1856, and duly recorded in the clerk’s office of the County court of Augusta county, Samuel B. Brown, in consideration that his wife, Mary Ann Brown, united with him in conveying a valuable real estate of her own and her dower in his real estate, conveyed to Thomas J. Michie and William H. Harman, a tract of two hundred acres of land in said county, upon trust that the said trustees should permit the said Mary Ann Brown and her…

This was an appeal by Henderson M. Bell, executor of Peter Crickard, deceased, from a decree of the Circuit court of Augusta county, made on the 22d of November 1872, in a cause in which he was plaintiff and the widow and legatees were defendants. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court, delivered by Judge Christian.

William D. Ewing, Rebecca D. Ewing, Elizabeth A. Ewing and Mary A. Ewing were the owners of a tract of land of four hundred acres, in the county of Augusta, called Riverton; each owning one undivided fourth part thereof. Previous to the 1st of April 1863 Rebecca D. Ewing and Elizabeth A. Ewing contracted to sell the whole of said tract of land to B. E. Kemper for $30,000 cash.

In the year 1857, David G. Wise sold to Alexander G. McChesney certain real estate in the county of Bath, at the price of $4,100; of which $1,000 was paid in hand, and for the residue three bonds of the purchaser were given, viz: for $1,000, payable January 1st, 1858; for $1,100, payable January 1st, 1859; and for $1,000, payable January 1st, 1860.

This case was decided at the September term 1873 of the court, but was not then directed to be reported. It is now reported by request of counsel, and the direction of the judges. This was an action of assumpsit in the County court of Shenandoah, brought in May 1868, by J. Brumbaugh against John Wissler, to recover compensation for care and attention to his property at Columbia furnace during the war.

In May 1872 the Valley Eailroad Company moved the County court of Augusta to appoint commissioners to ascertain a just compensation for the lands of William Crawford, wanted by said company for its purposes, in the county of Augusta; and thereupon commissioners. were appointed for the purpose.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Rockbridge county, instituted in June 18S9 by Abraham Bavell against William M. Gold’s administrator, to set up and recover the amount of a bond for $1,701, which the plaintiff alleged William M. Gold had executed to him on the 5th of September, 1856, and which he had lost in October 1858; and upon which there was endorsed a credit for $400, and another for $200.

In August 1869, John W. Cunningham, executor of M. M. Harrison, deceased, and George G. Goodrich, assignee of Pleasant Harrison, who sued for themselves and such other creditors of William B. Price, deceased, as should come in, &c., instituted their suit in equity in the Circuit court of Brunswick county, against John H. Rewis, executor of said Price, and his widow and children, all whom were infants.

Henry Hawpe, of the county of Augusta, died in March or April 1859, leaving a will which was duly admitted to probate in the County court.

This was an action for slander, brought in June 1866 in the Circuit court of Botetourt county, by Richard Stinnett against Ann S. Gorgas. Pending the action in the Circuit court, the defendant married Hiram' Hansbrough, and. he was made a defendant. The declaration contained seven counts, charging the ^slander to have been uttered in Pebruarj1- 1864. The defendants demurred to the declaration and each count thereof. But the court overruled• the demurrer.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Frederick county, instituted in February 1866, by Thomas J. Skinker and Ann Fliza his wife, who before her marriage was Ann Eliza Hite, against Philip Williams, executor of James M. Hite, Sr., deceased, and others, to recover the amount due to Mrs. Skinker under the will of her father, the said James M. Hite, deceased.

*This was an appeal by Maris Taylor from a decree of the Circuit court of Alexandria, made in a .cause depending in that court, and in which Edgar S. Hutchison was plaintiff and said Taylor vras defendant. The case is stated by Judge Christian in his opinion.

This was an action of debt upon an award, in the Circuit court of the city of Fynch-burg, brought by William H. Ford against The Fynchburg Female Orphan Asylum of Fynchburg, ■ to recover the sum of $1,100 awarded to him. The defendant pleaded “nil *debet;” and also that the award was without the submission.

This was an appeal from the decree of the Circuit court of Fairfax county, dissolving an injunction and dismissing the bill, in a suit brought by the Great Falls Manufacturing Company against the administrator of William Henry, deceased. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court delivered by Judge Bouldin.

*This case was argued in Staunton and decided in Richmond. It was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Augusta county, brought in October 1870, by Benjamin C. Patterson and others, creditors of Braxton Davis, deceased, against his widow and children, to set aside a deed executed by said Braxton Davis, conveying to a trustee two tracts of land for the benefit of Mrs. Davis for her life and then to their children, in consideration of her joining in conveying his other real…

<p>i. Wills — Bequests—Intention of Testator — Parol Evi= dence.* — Where the person or object or subject referred to in a bequest is uncertain, or does not answer precisely the description given them in the will, or where there are two or more objects or subjects which answer equally the description, resort must be had to parol evidence and the surrounding circumstances to show what the testator intended by the expressions which he used; and if such intention is so ascertained with sufficient certainty the bequest is valid.</p> <p>а. Same — Charitable Bequests — Construction.*—A bequest to “the Baptist Theological Seminary in South Carolina,” held, upon the evidence, to have been intended to he a bequest to the “Southern 1 Baptist Theological Seminary,” a Baptist theological institution in South Carolina, and incorporated by an act of that state.</p> <p>3. Same — Same—Bequest to Foreign Corporation. — The charter of “the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” authorizes it to hold, possess and enjoy all property, real and personal, which may be given, granted or devised to it; not to exceed at one time more than $500,000. A bequest to the institution made by a testator in Virginia is valid; it appearing that the bequest will not increase its funds beyond the prescribed limits.</p> <p>4. Same — Same—Same.—A devise or bequest to an incorporated theological seminary, whether located within or out of the state, is not void as against either public policy or any statute.</p> <p>5. Same — Same—Same—Statute.—The act of April 1839, ch. 12, § 11, entitled “an act concerning devises made to schools, academies1 and colleges,” and the act, Code of 1849, ch. 80, on the same subject, refer to indefinite charities; and it is only in relation to these that theological seminaries are excepted out of the authority to make such bequests for literary purposes.</p> <p>б. Same — Bonds.—A bequest of all testatrix’s bonds, will include judgments obtained upon bonds, but not judgments obtained upon simple contracts.</p>

The Masonic Building Association of the city of Norfolk, in January 1871, entered into separate written contracts with Charles Dashiell, Spaulding & Guy and William Rosson, for the erection of a large building upon a lot in the city of Norfolk, owned by the association.

<p>The case is stated in the opinion of the court delivered by Judge Bouldin.</p>

*This was an appeal by the executors of Richard Jones, deceased, from the decree of the Circuit court of Pittsyl-vania, rendered on the 7th of June, 1871, in a cause in which William T. Clark and John W. Holland were plaintiffs, and .said executors and others were defendants.

Samuel Hannah, of the county of Charlotte, died in 1859', leaving' a widow and six children; and leaving a will, which was duly admitted to probate in the County court of Charlotte. By his will he directed his just debts to be paid out of his crops or debts due him, his stocks or other personal estate; and that his estate, real and personal, be divided between his wife and six children, as the law directs in cases of intestacy.

In October 1868 Linke & Klepper, partners, obtained from the judge of the Circuit court of the city of Portsmouth an injunction to restrain James Fleming from enforcing a judgment for $1,507.12, with interest from August 20th, 1867, which Fleming had recovered against them in the Hustings court of the said city.

In August 1872, Archibald Adie, or Radie, and others, claiming to be heirs at law of James Adie or Radie, who was a native of Scotland, filed their petition in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, in which, after setting out their relationship as heirs and next of kin to James Adie or Radie of Scotland, and that said James had come to Virginia and died in the county of Hanover about the year 1850, they state that in 1860 the estate of James Adie had been escheated for…

Alexander Scott seems to have acted as sheriff of the county of Caroline in 1869, under military appointment.

<p>j. Contracts — Board of Public Works.— An action may he maintained ag-ainst the present hoard of public works of the state, upon a contract made with the hoard as organized under the former constitution and laws.</p> <p>2. Same—Same—Actions against.—A contractor has two claims against the state, arising out of the same contract, one for commission, and the other a percentage on his actual expenditures. He brings his suit, and recovers judgment for a certain amount which he alleges was the amount of the commissions. He brings another suit for the amount of the percentage on his actual expenditures; and the judgment in the first case is relied upon by the defense as having decided upon his whole claim. Parol evidence is admissible to prove that only the claim for commissions was involved in that case.</p>

In January 1872, T. R, Terrill instituted an action on the case in the Corporation court of the city of Alexandria against William H. Marbury, administrator of T. A. Brewis, deceased. The declaration contained four counts.

John Q. A. Barham, who had been appointed collector of the township of Berlin and Ivor, in the county of Southampton, having been required to give a new bond, he, with Peter J. Holmes, executed their bond, bearing date the 18th of September 1871, in the penalty of 82,000; with condition reciting the fact that said Barham has been required to give a new bond as such collector, and says, “Now if the said John Q. A. Barham shall faithfully discharge the duties of said office…

This was a motion in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, by the commonwealth against John Sheldon Jones, late treasurer of York county, and Sydney Smith and eleven others, the sureties of Jones, to recover the balance of land, property, capitation and license taxes of the year 1872, alleged to be due from Jones as treasurer of York county. *On the hearing of the motion it appeared that at the February term 1872 of the county court of York, John Sheldon Jones was…

This was a proceeding of unlawful de-tainer in the Circuit court of Northampton county, instituted the 3rd day of June 1874, by Sallie and Eliza Tazewell against Joseph P. Power and Benjamin Kellog, to recover the possession of certain oyster grounds situated on Old Plantation creek, opposite the lands of the plaintiff. The case was submitted to the decision of the court; and the court rendered a judgment in ' favor of the plaintiffs.

Michael Hart, a citizen of New York, died in September 1861, leaving- a widow and several children; and leaving a will which was duly admitted to probate in the surrogate court of New York. By his will he gave to his widow $75,000, and to his widow in trust for his daughter $30,000.

The surviving partners of the firm of Kent, Paine & Co. applied to this court by-petition for a mandamus to the Honourable Asa D. Dickinson, judge of the Circuit court of Charlotte county, to compel him to hear and decide a case which had been sent by the Court of Appeals to his court. The case is stated by Judge Christian in his opinion.

<p>The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of Judge Staples.</p>

<p>1. Partnerships—Dissolution—Bill for Account—Parties.*—H and P were partners, and they made a contract with D in relation to a business to be conducted by D. After the death of P, his personal representative, and H as surviving' partner, filed their bill against D to have an account and settlement of the business aforesaid. The bill showed, that some time previous to filing it, H had assigned all his interest in the firm of H & P to the firm for proper settlement of accounts; and after paying his partners all he might owe them, the surplus, if any, was to be paid to O. It also appeared from the bill, that H had been declared a bankrupt:. Both C and the assignee in bankruptcy of If are necessary parties; and a decree made in their absence against D will be reversed by the appellate court, though no objection was taken in the court below to the want of parties.</p> <p>2. Chancery Practice—Answers—Replication.†-—The decree in the conrt below was made when there was no replication to the answer of D; and after an appeal from the decree by I) was perfected, the court, on the motion of the plaintiffs, made an order permitting the plaintiffs to file the replication nunc wo tunc. If it was a proper case for such an order, the court should have allowed D time to take testimony to meet the new phase of the case presented hy the issue thus taken on his answer.</p> <p>3. Same—Amendment of Pleadings.‡—When the new parties are made, both parties should have liberty, if they desire it, to amend and modify their pleadings, so as to exhibit the case as they may desire respectively to present it.</p>

Richard Sampson, of the county of Gooch-land, died in 1864. He left a will which was made in August 1855, and a codicil which was made in September 1863. By the first clause of his will he gave to his wife Mary Sampson $20,000, to bear interest from his death, payable semi-annually, till the full discharge of the principal; also a carriage and horses, and two slaves.

In January 1874 J. A. Blair was indicted in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond for larceny, in stealing United States treasury notes of the value of fifty-three dollars. On his trial the jury found him guilty, and fixed the term of his imprisonment at three years.

In March. 1874, William D. Coleman was indicted in the Husting-s court of the city of Richmond, for that on the 31st of December, 1873, he was secretary of the commissioners of the sinking ft~nd, the said zinking fund having been authorized, &c.; ~`having acquiied possession in some manner and by some means, to the jury unknown, of a certain record, the same then and there being and remaining as a public record of the commonwealth of Vire~inia. in the office of the second…

In December 1873 Eeftwich Stoneman was indicted in the County court of Carroll county for the murder of Annuel Edwards, Jr., and was sent to the Circuit court of the county for trial. In April 1874 the trial came on, and he was found guilty by the jury, and the term of his confinement in the penitentiary was fixed at nine years, and the court sentenced him in accordance with the verdict.

<p>i. Burglary. — D and H rent a room jointly of S, of which each has a key. C rents an adjoining room, tile doors oí tlie two rooms entering upon the same porch near each other. They frequently interchanged visits. On the night of March 11th. 1874, D lochs his door, takes out the key, and starts to church. On the way he meets H. who says he is going to his room, and will follow him to the church soon. H and C conspire to steal D's goods in the absence of D on this night, and II opens the door with his key, and they enter the room, and take and carry away the trunk of D with its contents. This is not such a breaking as will constitute buglary in G.</p> <p>2. Same — What Constitutes. — The breaking which will constitute burglary may be actual or constructive. For what will be a constructive breaking. see the opinion of Moxcure. P.</p> <p>3. Same — Indictment — Larceny. — The indictment charging not only the breaking and entering, but the stealing of the trunk and its contents, of á stated value. C, though acquitted ot the burglary, may be found guilty of the larceny.</p>

In July 1873, Lycurgus Little and Oscar P. Little were jointly indicted in the County court of Clarke county for the murder of their brother Clinton L. Little. The prisoners pleaded “not guilty,” and elected to be tried separately, and to be tried in the Circuit court of the county. In October 1873, the case of Lycurgus Little was taken up for trial; and on the empanelling of the jury, the prisoner objected to William A. Riely’s forming one of the panel.

<p>The case is stated in the opinion of Judge Moncure.</p>

This was an indictment in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, against Henry Jordon for the robbery of Elijah Priddy of a pistol. Priddy lived in the county of Henrico, beyond the limits of the city, but within one mile of the corporation line, and the robbery was charged to have been committed at *his house.

At the September term 1874 of the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, Moore & Goodsons, partners, were indicted for that they did unlawfully transact business as merchants in the city of Richmond without having obtained a license according to law.

At the November term, 1874, of the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, John Dull was indicted for the larceny of “divers notes of the national currency of the United States,” of the value of five hundred and seventy dollars, the property of Joseph M. Fowlkes.

At the October term 1874, of the Corporation court of the city of Alexandria, Louisa Tremaine, alias Nettie Green, was indicted for the murder of Samuel Eichelberger. She was arraigned at the same term of the court; and upon her arraignment she filed a special plea to the jurisdiction of the Corporation court to try her for the crime of which she was indicted. To this special plea the attorney for the commonwealth demurred; and the court sustained the demurrer.

In November, 1874, John Wren was indicted in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, as an accessory after the fact of a felony committed by John Dull. John Dull was indicted and convicted for the larceny of five hundred and seventy dollars, the property and notes of Joseph M. Fowlkes. It appears that Fowlkes, who had come from the country to Richmond, was enticed into the house of Dull, where, through the pretence of a lottery, he ivas robbed of the above sum of money.