The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-12-12
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
The Morganton Local Option Case-In-
dictment for Issuing hallway Pass.
Especial to The Messenger.)

Raleigh, n. c., December 5.-The su-
prene court files the following opin-
ions: Herren vs. Pugh, from Samp-
son, per curtain. affirmed: Bristol VS..
Eorgantoa, from Burke, reversed;
Powell VS.. Railroad. from Burke, af-
firned; Griffith VS.. Silver. from Yam
cey, new trial: McNeeIy VS.. Morganton.
affirmed; Bracket VS.. Gillian. from
Mcdowell. affirmed: State VS.. South
err Railroad Company, reversed; Hen
derson VS.. Moore, from Wilkes, affirm
ed: Cowles VS.. Mcneil. from Wilkes,
new trial; Crabs VS.. Insurance Com
pany. from Stokes, affirmed: Mem
mings VS.. Doss. from Surry. error;
Wooten VS.. White. from Iredell. new
trial: WEIGH VS.. Cheek, from Ran
dolph. affirmed; Bynum VS.. Clark,
frem Cumberland. affirmed; Slocomb
VS.. Fayetteville. affirmed: Richardson
VS.. Justice, from Chatham. affirmed;
Max VS.. Harris, from Durham. affirm
ed, Well IS, Casey, from Wayne, mod
ifed and affirmed: State VS.. White,
from Wake, reversed.
A very interesting case decided by
the supreme court today is hat OF
MeNeely, appellant, VS.. Commissioners
VI %1ol SaItoi. dllilf z Sndplt LOO,
acts 1895, provided for a local option
election to be held for Morganton on
the first Monday in May, 1855. and
every two years thereafter, upon pc
tition of one-third of the qualified vot-
ers, and provided that IF at said cleo
tion or any such subsequent election
a majority of the votes asst should be
in of license" the commission
ers of the town should be authorized
~ tccttA lianncn for fhn colo Of cnfrfvx
Gus liquors. Elections held in MAJ,
1895 and 1897, resulted in a majority
for license" and upon the result of
such elections the plaintiff was twice
granted license Prior to the election
in 1895 prohibition law prevailed in the
town. The election held on the first
Monday in May, this year., upon pc
tition of one-third of the qualified vot-
ers, resulted in a tie. Held. that the
commissioners properly refused upon
the result of such election TO grant
license for the sale of spirituous liqu-
ors. Elections held under the provis-
ions of the act, every two years,
upon the first Monday in May" are
legal, although such elections were
not precisely two years apart. AS act
does not provide for new registration
for each succeeding election, the con-
tentiOn that there was not sufficient
time for registration, is without merit.
The most important case decided by
the supreme court today is that of the
State, appellant, VS., the Southern Rail-
way Company, reversed. Judge Clark
writes the opinion and says:
h there is an appeal to the
superior court from a trial upon in
dictment in a criminal court the in
dictments in both courts will be treat
ed as separate counts in the same bill,
and if either is good the court will
supper the verdict.
1.-THE charge in the indictment that
the defendant, a common carrier, did
give undue n unreasonable prefer
ence to one by giving him "a free pass
over the road of the Defendant" IS
| defective, in that it fails to allege that
by virtue of such free pass the recipi-
ent received free transportation. 1t is
the discrimination and not the method
by which it is done which constitutes
the offence. The allegation hat a CON
mon carrier gave the person named
undue preference by transporting hin
free, ex vi termi, alleges diScrimina'
ton. Where the indictment against &
common carrier charges undue prefer
ence in transportation which is no
within the exceptions named in thu
act creating the offence, a negative
Verm to that effect in the indict.
ment is not necessary, but if the pref.
erence afforded does come within The
statutory exceptions, such fact would
be a matter in defence. Such indict'
ment need not charge that there were
other persons upon the same trair
with the person to whom the discrimi
nation was given, paying fare. j
seems tina a train load of 'deadheadS
is discrimination within the meaning
of the statute. Chapter 800, laws 1891
was not repealed by Chapter SOC, laws
1899, as was decided in Abbott VS.. Bed
dingield, at this term"