Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1879-08-14
Supreme CourL Decisions.


Supreme Court HecisTolss. -
We copy the following decisions
of our Supreme Court that will be
of interest to our readers
Hodgin ". Mast, administrator,
ct al, from Forsyth. Affirmed.
| This action was originally brought
to Fall Torn, 1872, Forsyth Supe-
rior Court, against the principal
and sureties on a guardian bond,
the defendant, Robt. Matthews,
being alleged TO be one of the
sureties. lie denied that be ever
signed the bond, and the bond be-
ing lost the records of the County
Court do not mention his name
among those Of the obllgors who
rendered it, The defendant, Mat
thews, employed IN attorney and
on assurance of his counsel and
his co defendants that the judg-
ment would be but small, he al
lowed judgment to so against him.
1t was afterwards discovered that
an error was made in the calcula-
ton of the sum due, and ia 1876
the plaintiff gave Dotice to the de-
PENDANTS that he would move to
reopen the judgment aud rectify
the mistake. Defendant Matthews
employed another attorney 10 de-
tend his interests, who entered al
appearance bat put in no answer.
The matter was reopeped aud an
other account taken and report
made to Spring Term, 1877, largely
increasing the amount due. The
exceptions to the report were pass
ed on ard final judgment given at
Spring Term, 1878. The other de
PENDANTS have paid their pro rata
share, but Matthews refused to
pay and moved at Spring Term,
1878, to set aside the Judgment
under the G. &. p, section 133.
The motion was refused and deten
dant appealed.
UeId: The case is not one of
excusable neglect. The subsequent
correction of an error does not
change his relations to the cause
, nor impart any additional force
to his present application. He
submitted to a recovery of what
was due to be ascertained by the
reference, thereby surrendering
his claim to entire exemption the
results Of the second reference
have the same legal effect as to the
defendants rights in this regard,
as if they had been embodied in
the first report and the Judgment
founded upon it. The representa-
tions under which he gave his con-
sent came from his defendants
and it is not alleged that he was in
any wise Influenced by any sug
gestion or act of the plaintiff.
55. D2ggett VS.. Richmond &
Danville Railroad Company, from
Guilford.
Tie rule Of Liability Of railroads
for killing stock, as thus summed
up 6y tie Court: If the owner per
mits his cattle to stray off and get
upon the track and they ane killed
or hurt, the company is not liable
unless the company were careless y
runni2g the train, or could by the
exercise of proper care, after the
animals were discovered, have
avoided or prevented the injury.
The company is not required to
abate the usual and safe speed OF
their trains lest there may be cat
tie on the road, which may be
killed or injured and If proper
lookout is kept up aud all reason
+ able Efforts made, when the OBJ
structiou is seen, TO avoid an acci
, dent, the company is exempt from
L responsibility ana the injury is as
cribed to the contributory pegli-
gence Of the owner of the stock in
permitting them to roam about and
get Oh the track. When all the
facts and circumstances of the ac-
cident are shown, the law itsell
: will raise, or refuse to raise, the in
ference of neglect upon which the
| liability OF the company depends
, The force OF the presumption
. raised by the statute (Batt. Rev
ch. 16, sec. II, only applies wheu
; the facts are unknown, or when
from testimony they are uncertain.
, In such cases the statute turns the
scale, but not when all the facts
are established. Negligence is ii
, question of law, to be decided by
? the court upon admitted facts.
l. The New York Sun has already
Y nominated fen men for the next
9 Prncidonnu Lie fnr.ilit l., nn,,,i