Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 11 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By JANE BANGLEY
*MP«h«uioth Ntwi Staff WrtUr
Dayid L. Konick, a Washington, Va. lawyer, filed his reply on November 7 to a $225,000 lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought against Konick on October 18 by Diane E. Kidwell of Flint Hill.
The Kidwell suit referred to a period from September to November 1982 when Konick was representing the Kidwells in a right-of-way dispute with Patricia Saltonstall of Points of View Farm. On November 9, 1982, Kidwell shot and killed Ranee Spellman, foreman of Points of View Farm, while Spellman was widening a road. Kidwell was found not guilty of murder by reason of self-defense in October, 1983.
Konick begins his reply with a demurrer, which is a denial that the allegations of the suit, even if true, would legally constitute a cause for action. His reasons for the demurrer are that Kidwell’s motion for judgment does not state a cause for action recognized by the law of Virginia, that no remedy is offered by the law for the allegations in the motion for judgment, and that the motion shows that there was no harm done to Kidwell.
Konick also makes a plea of the statute of limitations because the suit was filed more than a year after any of the alleged wrongful or injurious events took place. Estoppel is included • in Konick’8 reply. Estoppel is the rule that stops anyone from alleging or denying a fact because of the person’s previous action by which the contrary has been admitted, implied or determined.
Konick states under the estoppel heading that Kidwell cannot bring the suit because she confronted Spellman “in direct contravention of advice, counsel and directions given to her by
79.9%