The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-12-24

certified to the Superior court of Meek
lenburg. The defendant claimed the
right to have his case tried on its merits
before jury.
The solicitor of the Superior court con-
tended that His Honor should only hear
and pass upon questions of law presented
in the record from the Criminal court.
His Honor ruled that the defendant was
entitled to trial de novo in the Superior
court and the, solicitor appealed.
"The appeal must be dismissed" says
Chief Justice Faircloth. writing the de-
cson of the court las it is not one of the
only instances in which the State can APP
peal. -" No appeal can lie from
n Criminal or Inferior court direct to the
Supreme court. The appeal
must be taken to the Superior court and
thence to the Supreme court.
Recurring to the main question, was
the defendant entitled to a trial dc novo
in the Superior court? our con-
clusion is that the defendant was not
entitled to q trial de novO in the Superior
court. but only to Il review sc matters of
law or legal Inference found in the case
on appeal from the Criminal court. I'm
der the broad provisions of the Code.
Section 800 the cause goes from the
Criminal to the Superior court by appeal,
as it does from the Superior to the SUI
preme court. The appeal should contain
a concise statement of the case. as IN
appeals to this court from the Superior
court
The school chart case was begun be-
fore justice of the peace against W. y.
Kinney, treasurer of Davidson county.
and Ed. l.. Greene, chairman of the
board of commissioners. upon an order
for So. so dated May IS, 1897, and sign
ed by Amos Smith and Joe Miller as
committee of district No. % tcolored) of
that county. reciting therein that it was
for the purchase of school charts. 1t was
payable to w. w. Tutwier, or bearer,
who sold it TO plaintiff. Il. l.. Wright
and endorsed it. Before the order was
endorsed to Wright the following was
written on it: Approved and counter
signed. Ed L. Greene. chairman of
board of county commissioners. But the
county commissioners never approved
the order, nor did it authorize Greene
to do so.
81 ~.
Ed. cation ordered the County Treasurer
to pay out of the funds apportioned to
the several districts the orders held by
Lexington and Salisbury banks, of which
number this check was one, with n
proviso that no district pay for more than
one chart. This order was presented to
defendant Kinney. as treasurer, and he
refused to pay it or recognize it as in any
way valid.
..Bv section Il. charter los. Laws of
1885, says Judge Walter Clark. writing
the opinion of the court. all such orders
are required TO be signed first by at
least three members of the committee
and then by the county supervisor who
shall place his seal upon it: and without
this no order shall be valid voucher
in the hands of the county treasurer:
Therefore, on the face the order was
invalid and the approval of Greene,
chairman could not have made it good.
In the absence OF evidence of fraud and
MISREPRESENTATION. Greene cannot there
fore be held liable for his unauthorized
signature which could not have misled
the plaintiff to his hurt. The order
would have been invalid even if the
signature had been duly authorized by
the county commissioners. the plaintiff
is no worse off because it was unauthoriz-
ed.
svThe action of the County Board Of
Education. January 3 1898. was nudity
rs that board had nothing to do with or
ders on the treasurer issued by the dis
strict.
Opinions were handed down as follows
by the Supreme court yesterday:
Pelletier VS.. Lumber &C.. from Cra-
ven; affirmed.
Cox VS.. Railroad, from Halifax; rev
trial
Bolden VS.. Railroad, from Guilford;
new trial.
Wright vs.. Kinney, from Davidson;
affirmed.
Stonestreet VS.. Frost, from DAVE:
plaintiffs appeal decided against defend
ant. with slight modification in judg-
ment below.
McPeeters vs. Blankcnship, from
Yancey; error.
State VS.. Pierce, from Union; af-
frmed.
State VS.. Hinson, from Mccklenburg;
appeal dismissed.
State VS.. Misenhmer, from Stany,
new trial.
Kiser vs.. Blanton, from Lincoln; new
trial.
Fertilizer Co. VS.. Rippy, from Cleve-
land; error.
Harris VS.. Brown, from Meeklenburs;
affirmed.
Marsh VS.. Griffin, from Union; re-
manded.
State VS.. Mcdowell, from Cherokee;
affirmed.
Parker VS.. Hastings, from Jackson;
new trial.
Mcclure VS.. spivey, from Cherokee;
affirmed.
Tillery VS.. Gambler, from Madison; af-
firmed.
Ramsey VS.. Ramsey, from Madison;
affirmed.
Featherstone VS.. Wilson, from Bun
y~~>~~~~>