sound, it would lead to the quashing of any later indictment which might thereafter be found against him, upon the mere suggestion that the accused had been compelled o supply the incriminating evidence in violation of his constitutional privilege. There being neither averment nor proof either of compulsion exerted against the accused or of his incrimination of himself the ruling is plainly right. Affirmed.

1.

2.

SIMS v. CAPPER, ET AL.

(Wytheville, June 15, 1922.)

APPEAL AND ERROR.-Bill of Exceptions-Time of Signing-Identification of Evidence-Skeleton Bill-Code, sec. 6252. EJECTMENT.--Paper Title-Adverse Possession-Evidence-Claim of Title.

3. IDEM.-Acreage-Identification of Land.

Error to Circuit Court of Arlington county.

Reversed.

James Sherier and Amos C. Crounse, for the plaintiff in error.

Crandall Mackey, for the defendants in error.

This is an action of ejection which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff in the court below, Laura B. Sims, brings error.

The material facts disclosed by the evidence, without conflict therein, are as follows:

The plaintiff proved a paper record title to the land claimed in the declaration, running back to the Commonwealth, and proved, by evidence, consisting of the testimony of surveyors and the descriptions contained in conveyances in the chain of title, that a portion of such land was in the possession of the defendants in error, who were the defendants in the court below, and will be hereinafter referre:l to as defendants.

Magnetx

It developed that the defendant, Mrs. Woody, claimed to be the owner of the portion of the land in the possession of the defendants, Capper being merely her tenant.

The land claimed in the declaration is shown on the plat made by R. P. Hough, C. E., dated January 24, 1916, in evidence, reproduced below on a reduced scale, within the lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

POTOMAC PIVER

The dwelling and store, the portion of the stable, (the greater part being a shed to the stable), included within the lines of the plat, and the land lying between these two buildings, is the land in the possession of the defendants, title to which is involved in this action.

This action was instituted on February 3, 1919.

The defendant, Mrs. Woody through her tenant Capper. upon the death of her father-in-law, took possession of the said portion of the property, title to which is involved in this action, less than two years prior to the institution of the action, and held possession of it from that time, through her tenant Capper, up until the action was brought, claiming title thereto for life, with remainder to her children, under the will of her father-in-law, Edward T. Woody, which bears date November 7, 1917, and was probated in the District of Columbia. The will bears date a short time prior to the death of the testator.

This will, so far as material in this case, contains the following provision:

*

"I leave to my daughtern law, Lillie I. M. Woody, during life, at death to revert to her children, the * house at the south end of chain bridge in Virgina."

The evidence showed that Edward T. Woody had actual, continuous possession of the aforesaid portion of land, for approximately forty one years next preceding his death; but the evidence is absolutely silent on the subject of his having ever expressly claimed any title to such land. The only evidence of any express claim of ownership is that one witness for the defendant testified that "he claimed the building, I knew."

It appears both from the testimony for the plaintiff and for the defendants, without conflict, that the building shown on the plat as a stable, was built, soon after the end of the civil war, by one James W. Walker, under the following permit or license in writing from the Mayor of Georgetown, namely:

"Mayor's Office. Georgetown, December 30th, 1865. Permission is hereby granted to Mr. James Walker to erect a small frame house on the lot belonging to this corporation near the west and south side of Chain Bridge unless otherwise prohibited by the corporation. (Signed) H. Addison, Mayor."

This building was occupied by Walker as a dwelling place and bar-room until some time in 1876. The building was in fact located on what was supposed to be public property, except a small portion of the building which extended over upon the land afterwards acquired by the plaintiff; and there is nothing in the evidence to show that Walker ever claimed any title to any of the land on which this building was erected, or made any other claim than of the ownership of the building as on land belonging to the public, put there by the permission or license aforesaid.

It appears also from such testimony, without conflict, that the building shown on the plat as a dwelling house and store, was built by one Frank Scott, soon after the said building, now designated as a stable, was erected by Walker as aforesaid, under a permit or license from one George Hill, one of the predecessors in title of the plaintiff. Scott, prior to 1876, sold this building to the said Walker. There is no evidence tending to show that Scott ever claimed any title to or undertook to sell Walker any land. Walker thereupon took possession of this building also and retained possession of it until some time in 1876. There is no evidence that Walker ever claimed title to the land on which this building stood.

It appears from the same testimony above mentioned, and without conflict, that some time in 1876 Walker sold to the said Edward T. Woody, the aforesaid testator, under whom the defendants claim, both of said buildings. There is no evidence tending to show that Walker undertook to sell to the testator any land. Theerafter, as aforesaid, the testator had actual possession of such buildings continuous

ly until his death; but there is no evidence that he ever claimed any title to the land on which the buildings stood in that vicinity.

Further: The plaintiff introduced testimony, the truth of which was in no way controverted by the evidence for the defendants, that in the year 1916, the said testator presented to an agent of plaintiff the said permit from the Mayor of Georgetown and the following receipt from the said Walker, as the only title papers to the said two buildings, held by the testator, namely:

"Received from Mr. Edward T. Woody the sum of $500.00 for a consideration to be expressed in a bill of sale of a two-story frame house with all appurtenances thereto belonging, standing at the end of the Falls Bridge in the State of Virginia on a piece of land by permission of Henry Addison, late Mayor of Georgetown, bearing date 1865, for which said house I am to execute a bill of sale when required by the said Edward T. Woody. Witness my hand and seal this 3rd day of October, 1876. (Signed) James W. Walker (By his mark) (Seal) Edward Woody, by his mark. John Lintler, witness."

That on this occasion the said testator made an appointment, with the witness for plaintiff who gave the testimony last above referred to, (and this also is uncontroverted), to return later and bring his attorney, which he did; and that after the testator and attorney had examined the record title of the plaintiff, the testator, in the presence of his attorney, admitted that he had no title to the land, and only claimed the buildings.

Other pertinent matters are mentioned in the opinion of the court.

SIMS, J., after making the foregoing statement, delivered the following opinion of the court.

The first question to be disposed of is raised by a motion of the defendant to dismiss the appeal as improvidently