The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-12-24
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

REPORTED by Perrin Busbee. Esq, of the
Raleigh Bari
Fl. II. Riddle and wife (appellant) VS.
Town Of Germanton; from Stokes
county. Opinion by Faircloth, G. j,
/. A survey for the owners own con-
yenience is not admissible evidence for
him or those claiming under him, but
is competent to explain the testimony
of witnesses and to enable the jury to
understand it. So with diagrams and
plats. And where the record does not
show for what purpose such plats were
sought TO be introduced, this Court
will presume that it was for the above
purpose.
2. A motion for Judgment non OBJ
stante veredicto should not be allowed
unless the cause of action has been adj
mitted and the plea of avoidance
found insufficient.
State VS.. Charles Mize (appellant);
from Alexander county. Opinion
by Clark, j.
Where the widow and the executor
by mutual consent had the years sup
port laid off under the provision of the
win, and the fling Of the report of the
same, endorsed thereon, s'We, the un-
dersigned, having heard the foregoing
report read, do agree to same held,
that there being no evidence of fraud
or undue influence, the widow is es-
topped from instituting proceedings
for a wears allowance under section
2129 of the Code. Reversed.
Glanton & Cotton. eft al vs.. Joseph
Jacobs. trustee, ct al. appellants;
from Forsyth county. Opinion by
Clark, j.
The cost of court house is a nee
essary expense to the county, and the
discretionary power vested in the
Commissioners of determining what
kind of court house is needed and q
reasonable limit to the cost, as we'll as
method of providing for the payment
of the same, is not renewable by the
Courts. Hence ii is immaterial whefh-
er the Board of Commissioners issue
bonds or make contract to pay in
installments and incur the risk Of
creating a floating debt.
Affirmed.
A. ]. Bates ct al. appellants vs.. NJ. L.
Sultan ct al, from Craven county.
Opinion by Montgomery, j.
Where a married woman, who was
conducting mercantile business
through her husband as agent, sent a
schedule of her financial condition to
the plaintiff firm for the purpose of
establishing her credit. in which writ
ing it was stated that for the purpose
of establishing my credit and as a
basis therefor, / make the following
statement. which shall apply TO all fu-
ture purchases: Held, that such state
4
TO charge her separate estate for fu-
ture purchases: and a separate written
guaranty by the husband to pay for
the purchases of the wife is consent
on his part that she shall SO charge
her separate estate.
Error.
Faircloth, G. j.. and Furches, j.. dis
sent.
n. a. Lewis appellant vs. Western
Union Telegraph Company, from
Forsyth county. Opinion by Fur
ches, J.
!. Where a complaint states that a
copy of a telegram is attached, such
copy and the conditions appearing
thereon become a part Of the com
plant
.. \ condition printed on the back OF
a telegram blank upon which mes
sage is sent, that the company will not
be liable for any damages unless the
claim is presented within sixty days
after the sending thereof, is not a con-
dition limiting the liability of the com
pany. or the time within which action
may be brought, but is reasonable
one. except in cases where the message
mas never been delivered.
AfBrrupd