fifth assignment error in Virginia

1950These facts, considered together, are insufficient to bring the cases within the rule announced in the majority opinions in Haley v. Ohio, supra, and Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401 , 65 S. Ct. 781 , 89 L. ed. 1029. (5) The fifth assignment of error is based on the allegation that the trial court ruled on the qualification of jurors and the admissibility of evidence in the absence of the accused.

1950These facts, considered together, are insufficient to bring the cases within the rule announced in the majority opinions in Haley v. Ohio, supra, and Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401 , 65 S. Ct. 781 , 89 L. ed. 1029. (5) The fifth assignment of error is based on the allegation that the trial court ruled on the qualification of jurors and the admissibility of evidence in the absence of the accused.

1947The fifth assignment of error is concerned with the court’s refusal to grant instruction D-X, which is this: “The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence of any pecuniary loss by the death of the child in question.” We decided the contrary in the case of Ratcliffe v. McDonald, 123 Va. 781 , 97 S. E. 307 .

1947The fifth assignment of error is concerned with the court’s refusal to grant instruction D-X, which is this: “The court instructs the jury that there is no evidence of any pecuniary loss by the death of the child in question.” We decided the contrary in the case of Ratcliffe v. McDonald, 123 Va. 781 , 97 S. E. 307 .

1940Co. v. Poole, 148 Va. 363 , 138 S. E. 487 .” He also said: “The fifth assignment of error is, in effect, that the court erred in not sustaining the objection of the defendant to the notice of motion for judgment, because under the said act of 1928 a policy is rendered void if the interest of the insured is other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned in fee simple, unless otherwise provided by agreement in writing added thereto, even though the insurer, or its agent, may have been fully advised with reference to all the facts reg

1940Co. v. Poole, 148 Va. 363 , 138 S. E. 487 .” He also said: “The fifth assignment of error is, in effect, that the court erred in not sustaining the objection of the defendant to the notice of motion for judgment, because under the said act of 1928 a policy is rendered void if the interest of the insured is other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned in fee simple, unless otherwise provided by agreement in writing added thereto, even though the insurer, or its agent, may have been fully advised with reference to all the facts reg

1935Co. v. James, 147 Va. 178, 194 , 136 S. E. 660, 665 , it was said: “The fifth assignment of error involves the action of the court in allowing two witnesses to testify that, in former years, the railroad company had a wire fence near the embankment at the point where the accident occurred.

1935Co. v. James, 147 Va. 178, 194 , 136 S. E. 660, 665 , it was said: “The fifth assignment of error involves the action of the court in allowing two witnesses to testify that, in former years, the railroad company had a wire fence near the embankment at the point where the accident occurred.

1916The bill of exceptions taken to save this point shows absolutely nothing of the evidence except the question and answer, and is fatally defective under the ruling of this court in Jacobs v. Warthen, 115 Va. 571 , 80 S. E. 113 ; but we have nevertheless considered it in the light of the whole of the testimony of the witness, Louise Jones, (appearing elsewhere in the record) and we are fully satisfied there was no error in overruling the objection. 6.

1916The bill of exceptions taken to save this point shows absolutely nothing of the evidence except the question and answer, and is fatally defective under the ruling of this court in Jacobs v. Warthen, 115 Va. 571 , 80 S. E. 113 ; but we have nevertheless considered it in the light of the whole of the testimony of the witness, Louise Jones, (appearing elsewhere in the record) and we are fully satisfied there was no error in overruling the objection. 6.

1915Olie Roop, one of the children of testator and a legatee under his will, the objection to this testimony being that the admissions of a legatee cannot be given in evidence to impeach the will where there are other legatees or devisees interested in sustaining it, and as sustaining this contention the case of Whitelaw v. Whitelaw, 96 Va. 712 , 32 S. E. 458 , is cited.

1915Olie Roop, one of the children of testator and a legatee under his will, the objection to this testimony being that the admissions of a legatee cannot be given in evidence to impeach the will where there are other legatees or devisees interested in sustaining it, and as sustaining this contention the case of Whitelaw v. Whitelaw, 96 Va. 712 , 32 S. E. 458 , is cited.