The Charlotte Democrat., 1893-12-01
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Synopsis OF Decisions from Advance Sheets
of the 18th n. G. Reports.
Raleigh Observer.

of the 11Sth NJ c. Reports
Raleigh Observer
State VS.. 81. L. Finlayson, from Wayne.
New trial.
!. In the trial of an indictment against
a person for refusing and neglecting to
take out license tax imposed by the or
dinance of city, a special verdict by the
jury which fails to specify the trade or oc-
cupation carried on by the defendant and
to set forth the specific provisions of the
ordinance alleged to have been violated,
is fatally defective, and a new trial will be
granted on an appeal from the judgment
thereon.
State VS.. Will Drake; from Wilson.
New trial.
[. No confession by prisoner is ad,
missibie which is made in consequence of
any lnducement of temporal nature,
having reference to the charge against
him.
2. If promises or threats have been
used to induce confession by prisoner,
it must be made to appear that their in
fuence has been entirely done away with
before subsequent confessions can be
uooiu0u 'OlunIoiy ouu Guorotoro aumlS-
sible therefore.
3. Where, after arresting a person
charged with burglary and while convey.
ing him to the preliminary trial, the officer
said to prisoner: eff you are guilty, I
would advise you to make an honest con,
fession. 1t might be easier for you. 1t is
plain against you" And the prisoner
said, Il am not guilty." and after the pre-
liminary investigation, and while being
conducted to Jail by the same officer (who
had not withdrawn the inducement to
confess which he had held out to the pris-
oner while on the way to the Magistrate's g
ofice) the prisoner made a confession
held, that such confession was inadmis
sible as evidence on the trial since it may
have proceeded from the ihducement held
out to him by the officer when on the way
to the Magistrates Office, and if so, there
is no guaranty of its truth, and it ought
to be rejected.
State VS.. W. c. Riley, from Orange
new trial.
l. The court cannot direct a verdict in
a criminal case even when the evidence
for the State is uncontradicted, for the plea
oil not guilty disputes it's credibility, and
there is the presumption of innocence
which can only be overcome by the verdict
of the jury therefore.
2. Where, on the trial of a prisoner, the
evidence ofthe State being uncontradicted,
the court told the jury that if they be-
lieved the evidence to return 3 verdict OF
guilty, and after pausing moment or
two, and the jury manifesting no disposi
tion to retire, the court told the clerk to
enter the verdict of guilty; Held, that
while it was not necessary that the jury
should retire, yet it was indispensable
that they should agree upon and render
the verdict. distinction between civil
and criminal actions in this respect noted
and discussed.)
E. L. Cheatham vs.. J. r. Young ct al,
from Vance. No error.
l. Where it becomes material to prove
the contents of record of the proceed
ings of municipal corporation, the party
relying upon 1t may identify or offer the
original or introduce copy properly
certified.
2. Documents ofa public nature and OF
public authority are generally admissible
in evidence in proof of those matters, the
remembrance of which they were called
into existence to perpetuate, although
their authenticity be not confirmed by
the ordinary tests of truth, the obligation
of an oath and the power of cross examina
ton of the parties on whose authority
the truth of the document depends; there
fore.
3. The records made by the Mayor and
Commissioners of town Empowered to
locate, open or widen the public streets
naming and fixing the width Of certain
streets, and made ante Item motem, are
competent though not conclusive evidence
to locate the boundary line when the
tion are called for in deed upon which
plaintiff relies.
z. 1t is competent for defendant tt
prove possession by himself and thos'
under whom he may claim, for seven years
in support of general denial in an an
swer that the plaintiff is the owner, with
out specially pleading the statute.
Trinity College vs.. Travellers Insurance
Company, from Durham. Affirmed.
/. An insurable interest in the life o
another is such an interest arising from
the relation Of the party obtaining the in
surance, either as creditor of or surety
for the assured, or from ties of blood Of
marriage to him, as will justify reason
able expectation of an advantage or benei
from the continuance of his life.
| 2. Except in cases where there are tie
of blood or marriage, the expectation of al
advantage from the continuance of tn
life of the the insured in order to be rea
sonable, must be founded in the existenc
of some contracts between the persol
whose life is insured and the beneficiary
the fulfillment of which the death viii
prevent, and when this contractual rela
ton does not exist, and there are no tie
of blood or marriage, an insurance polio.
becomes what the law denominates
wagering contract, and hence illegal an
void, no matter what good object tn
parties may really have in view; therefore
g. A policy ofinsurance issued on tn
life of a member of religious organizs
ton for the benefit of an institutio
deriving its patronage and support mainl
from the members of such religion
organization, is void.