The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-02-11
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

State vs.. Minor Lytle (appellant); from
Buncombe county. Opinion by Fur
ches, J.
i. An offence is presumed to have
been committed in the county in which
the Indictment charges it to have been
committed; and where there is no evi-
dence of venue. it is presumed to have
been committed in the State
2 On trial for arson, it was not
error to permit witness to testify that
defendant had a short while before the
fire. complained that prosecutor was
charging too much rent, and upon wit
ness asking him what he was going TO
de about it. defendant said: iii burn
IT.
3. Nor was it error to permit a wit
ness 10 testify that on the night the
barn was burnt, witness met a man
whom he took for defendant. near his
house; that the man was low and
chunky, and had on a dark cack coat:
that he was only seven feet from him,
but could not tell whether he was white
or black; that he had known the defen
dant for ten years, and that If he had
spoken TO the man, he would have cali
ed him "Lytle."
Affirmed.
Heath, Morrow q Go. vs.. John S. Nor
gan ct al (appellants) from Stanly
county. Opinion by Furches, j.
j. In an action for repleyin, where
the complaint and summons described
the plaintiffs as II. ar. 4 Co: Held to
be fatally defective. On demurrer.
2. The allegation in such complaint
that defendants are in the unlawful
mud wrongful possession of the prop
trty, and unlawfully Withholding the
possession from the plaintiffs" is suf-
ticient, although no demand is alleged.
3. a married woman, whose hus-
band Is a fugitive from justice and a
nonresident, can be sued in replevfn
for property claimed under d chattel
mortgage made by the husband, with
out the ioinder of the husband as
party defendant
4. Where a married woman is de-
scribed in the summons as ''Mrs M -
but her name given in full in the COM
plant; Held, not to be ground for de-
murrer.
Error.
II. u. Sheriff. VS. Western Union Tele-
graph Company (appellant) from
Iredell county. Opinion by Avery j.
Where telegram announced the SER
| ious illness of a person and requested
an Immediately delivery, preparing
the same, and the telegraph cornrany
| delivered the message to a person liv-
ing near its office who had the same
/ surname but different initials from
| the addressee; Held.
]. That as the rule of the company
/ required the operator, when in any
doubt, TO telegraph back to the send
/ ing Office for better address, the fail
ure of the receiving operator to make
such inquiry is negligence on the part
! Of the defendant company, and it is
/ no excuse that such operator suppos-
ed that oil the information obtainable
/ had been sent him in the first instance.
2 The failure of the sender 10 have
/ given the precise address of the adj
4 dressee does not excuse the failure of
/ the company from its negligence in
/ delivering to the wrong person, or its
1 failure to ascertain better address.
! 3. A sister living with the plaintiff
/ is competent to testify as to the men
tai suffering Of the plaintiff because
/ Of his failure 10 receive the telegram
| announcing the illness of his child.
4. The submission Of three issues:
/ + Was defendant guilty Of negligence
/ 2. Was plaintiff guilty Of contTibutory
| negligence? 3. Was such contributory
| negligence the proxiInate cause Of the
injury? was not prejudicial to the
| plaintiff when accompanied with the
| instructions that if defendant was neg.
| ligent failing to notify the sender Of
| the message or its non-deliyery, that
omission Of duty, and not the more re
mote want Of care in failing TO furnish
a specific description Of the addresses
residence was the proXimate cause Of
I the injury.
Affirmed.
q H. Cobb 81 al rs. Smith Edwards zap.
i pellant) from Greene Co. Opinion
by Avery, J.
Where, in an action to establish a
parol trust Of lands, il appeared that
~, the purchaser at judicial sale OF
lands OF an intestate was the husband
Of one of the heirs, and that ,, another
of the heirs. was the guardian Of the
two remaining heirs, II and G. @ testi-
fed that he heard J ask w to buy al
the sale aud that ~ agreed to pur-
chase the land and hold il till we
could redeem i'll another witness
stated that during the bidding "a ask.
ed another person not to bid as he was
buying for his wife and j another
witness stated that w had said that he
was going to buy the land and keeT
ii in the family; another that he had
heard w say that he was willing that
the heirs should have the land if they
would pav him back the money aud I'M.