The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-05-12
Especial to the Messenger,


Raleigh, N. c., May 9.-The supreme
court decides against Bryan and Dortch
and in favor of Patrick in the Atlantic
and North Carolina railway case, so
the fusionists keep control. 1t decides
in favor of Cherry, democrat, against
Burns, fusionist, for keeper of the cap
itol. 1t decides in favor Edwards &
Broughton and Uzzell and against the
Capitol Printing Company in the public
printing case. 1t decides in favor of
Wilson, fusionist, against Jordan,
democratic, for control of the court
lerkship of Buncombe. In the agri-
cultural board case it decides in favor
of the democrats.
The supreme court also filed the fol-
lowing opinions: Huss VS.. Craig, error.
Charlotte Fertilizer Company VS.. Rip
py, petition to rehear dismissed. Whit
man vs.. Dickney, reversed. State VS..
Rhyme, new trial. (This is a noted
murder case, from CASTOR county,.
Norwood VS.. Pratt, motion for c~ertior-
ari denied. Trollinger VS.. Railroad
Company, motion to reinstate denied.
Collins VS.. Bryan, new trial. Collins
VS.. Pettitt, petition to rehear dismissed.
Wilkinson VS.. Brinn, reversed.
The supreme courts decision in the
agricultural board case knocks in the
head any proposed contests by the for
mer fusion boards for control of other
state institutions such as the school for
the deaf at Morganton, the institution
for the blind at Raleigh and the Agri-
cultural and Mechanical College, and
establishes, without controversy, that
the legislature has the power to elect
trustees of these institutions.
The suit Of Wilson VS.. Jordan was
very similar to the case of Abbott
against B~eddingfeld. Two of the most
prominent lawyers in the state said to-
day that Beddingfeld's chances were
gone. One said "Beddigfield had abso-
~tely no case now. I should think he
ould simply withdraw"
The supreme court files opinions in
all important cases save that of Alb
bolt VS.. B~eddingfeld, which has not
been argued and which therefore goes
over until next term. In the case of
Wilson VS.. Jordan, from Buncombe, in
volving title to the criminal court
clerkship, Justice Furches delivers the
opinion in favor of the plaintiff.
DISCORD AMONG THE JUSTICES.
Justice Clark dissents, and thereupon
Justice Furches, in addition to his opin-
ion, makes the sharpest thrust at JUS
tiCe Clark ever made in an opinion.
Justice Furches says From intima-
tons made by a member of this court
We are induced to say that we have dis
cussed the legal questions arising in
this case as they appeared to us. We
do not invite criticism. We have no
right to object to fair criticism and we
do not do so. If such criticism shall be
INDUCED as is not just or legitimate we
believe an intelligent and learned pro-
fession will discriminate between that
which is legitimate and which is not
1t has been suggested by a member of
this court that the legislature has the
power to impeach a judge, that it has
recently done so and that there is nc
appeal from its judgement. Sush sug-
-. -
= the history Of this court until now
This suggestion added nothing TO the
strength of the argument advanced fol-
defendant. Why it should have been
made we do not know. But remember
ing our position as members OF this
court, we will not express our senti-
ments as to such suggestions and viii
only say that in our opinion any mem
Der of auy court who would allow him.
self to be influenced by such suggestions
is unfit to be a judge"
THE RAILROAD CASE.
In the case OF Bryan against Patrick
for possession Of the Atlantic and Nortl
Carolina. railway, the court, Faircloti
delivering the opinion, holds that Bry
an is not entitled to the presidency fo1
the reasons stated in cases of Wood V!
Bellamy and State VS.. Day. In case o
Dortch, who sought to obtain office o
state proxy Of same road il is held tn
new or democratic board had no RICH
toact in the premises and could not le
gally elect Dortch. Clark and Mont
gomery dissent in the Atlantic an
North Carolina Carolina railway cases
THE PUBLIC PRINTING CASE.
In the public printing case the cour
decides that the acceptance by the Join
committee on printing of the bid of III
Capital Printing Company and tn
award to it Of the contract for publi
, nrintinp did not amount 10 q oo,+roo