The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-11-15
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Digest of the Opinions Handed Down
During the Past Week.

| Reported by Perrin BusDec, Esq, OF the
| Raleigh Bar.
I. F. Elliott VS.. G. T. Tyson (petition-
err from Pitt county. Opinion by
Clark, j.
In a petition to rehear a case which
was dismissed upon the ground that
| only costs were involved, it was con-
| tended that there was original want
of jurisdiction a. because the action
was begun before the Clerk OF the
| Court and the amount involved was
| less than $500. CO. That even if the
amount was more than 5000, the action
should have been brought to term and
not before the clerk. 1t appears that
the original complaint alleged that the
| crop, the property in controversy, was
worth about $3.50, and asked for an
equitable division of the same, but left
it uncertain whether or not the PLAIN
tiff claimed all of said property as his
part of the crop; and upon demurrer
on account of ambiguity, the plaintiff
was allowed to amend by alleging
ownership in all the property IN con
troversy; Held, that, unlike a Justice
of the Peace, the Clerk is really part
of the Superior Court, and case
wrongfully instituted before him upon
appeal needs only an amendment OF
process to justify jurisdiction. The
effect of such amendment is mot to
confer but to show jurisdiction"
Petition dismissed.
Alice A. Shaffer ct al. VS.. NJ. A. Bled-
soc ct AL (appellants), from Wake
county. Opinion by Furches, j.
/. Where land was acquired and
marriage contracted prior to the CON
stitution of '68, deed TO such land
executed by the husband without the
joinder of the wife, passes perfect
title to the gantee.
(There are many obiter expressions
in our reports which seem to conflict
with the above, but an examination
will show that the parties were mar
ried or the land acquired since the
adoption of said constitutional
2. If it be that there are parties in
terested in the remainder after the life
estate of the defendant Bledsoe, they
are not parties to this action and will
not be estopped by the judgment in
this case from asserting any rights
they may have after his death.
Judgment affirmed.
State VS.. Ed. Jeffreys (appellanD from
Granville county. Opinion by
Avery, j.
Improper and indecent acts and pro-
posals on the part of the defendant I'M
accomplished by further acts on his
part to accomplish his purpose, do not
constitute the offence of an assault to
commit rape, and should not be left
to the jury.
State VS.. S. B. Jeffries (appellant) from
Guilford county. Opinion by Mont
gomery, j.
Where defendant, who had executed
chattal mortgage on his bicycle,
horse and wagon, was indicted under
the Code, Section 1889 for disposing of
the bicycle with the intent to hinder,
delay and defeat the right of the
mortgage; Held,
/. That it was error not to exclude
testimony tending to show that five
months after defendant had pawned
the bicycle, he had attempted to sell
the wagon.
g. While the law is settled that
collateral offence" tends to prove the
guilty knowledge" and such evidence
is admissible as constituting a part of
the res gesta, yet the collateral of
fence" must be confined to a time be-
fore, or just about the time, the of
fence charged is alleged to have been
committed in order TO be competent.
The alleged attempt of the defendant
to sell the wagon after the lapse of five
months raises no presumption of an
unlawful and corrupt intent in dispos-
ing of the bicycle.
New trial.
State VS.. j. +. Holloway ct al. lapel
lants), from Orange county. Opin-
ion by Faircloth, G. j.
lit is error to charge the jury that
'they had right to scrutinize close
ly the testimony Of the defendants
and receive it with grains of allow
ance, on account of their interest in
the event of the action" without also
further instructing them that if they
believe the credibility of the witnesses
to be creditable, they should give their
testimony the same weight as the evil
dence of any other witness.
(The charge in State vs.. Boone, SO n.
G. Gas and State VS.. Byers, 100 N. G.
SIS, cited as models and approved)
2. The allegation in the indictment
for entering upon prosecutors land
and pulling up his fence posts and
burning them; that defendant ''did
maliciou.ly and mischieyously destroy
and burn said posts contrary to the
form of the statute" etc, is sufficient
under the Code, Sec. 1910.
Venire de novo.
Rebecca j. Gates VS.. j. o. Latta ct al.
(appellanD, from Durham county.
Opinion by Faircloth, G. J.
Where blast is covered by other
means the fight of the dangerous
parts is restricted within safe limits,
notice to people living near by and to
passers-by is not necessary; but in the
absence of such precautions notice,
sufficient in time for those near by
to make their retreat to safe place,
is a reasonable requirement.
No error. Affirmed.