The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-06-12

State VS.. Bost. 125, n. c., at page 700.
Rhyme VS.. Lipscomb is cited as au-
thority by Furches, j., in Wilson VS..
Jordan, 124, \. c., at page 600 and in
Mccall VS.. Webb, 125 n. c., at page
247 and by Douglas, j., 125 y. c.. 100.
Several of the above eases have
been also cited as authority in opin-
ions at this term.
after the above repeated and re-
iterated construction of the amended
constitution as giving the General
Assembly power to confer upon courts
created by it 'all the original iuris-
diction, civil as well as criminal, which
was formerly in the Superior courts,
subject only to the appellate jurisdic-
ton of the Superior court, it should
seem that the matter was settled. The
Judges who concurred in all the above
decisions are the same who now set
on the court. NN
"'rhere is no constitutional provis-
ion recurring a grand jury at any
term of the Superior court and since
the Amendments of 1875 to constitu-
tional bestowal upon the Superior
courts of the original criminal juris-
diction which would require a grand
ties. certain terms of the Superior
court have no grand jury but are
purely for civil business. If there
fore the peremptory mandamus should
issue as prayed for, it should proper
ly issue to the General Assembly. for
the county commissioners of Forsyth
are not Empowered to legislate as to
what terms of the Superior courts
|, e.,
ing a grand jury. and what terms
may be for civil business, not necessi
tating a grand jury"
LICENSE TO SELL PIANOS AND
ORGANS.
Another decision of some special in
terest is that in State VS.. Morrison,
from Lincoln county, in which it is
held that the SO license 10 sell pianos
and organs authorizes the sale by only
the person holding the license, and
there must be an additional license
for every additional agent.
This case arose under section 81,
chapter II, Laws of 1899, which re
quires that every person or corpora
ton engaged in the business of sell
ing pianos or organs by sample, list
or otherwise in this State, shall before
selling or offering to sell any such in
strument, pay to the sheriff or tax
collector a tax of ten dollars on each
brand and obtain Il license which
shall operate one year from its date
and all licenses provided for in this
section shall be countersigned by the
register of deeds and shall not be
valid unless SO countersigned.'
The defendant is indicted for en-
gaging in the business of selling pa-
nos and organs in Lincoln county
without license. 1t is found by the
special verdict that f. NJ Andrews
d Co.. of Charlotte. upon payment
of $1,000 obtained license from the
sheriff of that county under the above
section; that it had several agents
and employees travelling and selling
organs by sample under that one Ii
cense, that the defendant sold organs
in Lincoln as one of, the agents of
aforesaid corporations: that no license
had been issued to him.
CHILD LABOR IN COTTON MILL.
During the present term of the SUI
preme court opinions have been hand
ed down in two cases in which the
court was equally divided, and there
fore the decision of the lower court
stood in these particular cases, but
not as precedent.
The first of these was in the case of
Boone VS.. PEBBLES from Northamp-
ton, in which the court was two and
two, Justice Clark not sitting because
of his relation to one of the parties
to the suit. The second case is Ward
VS.. Odell Manufacturing Company.
from Iredell county decided last Sat
urday. In this case also the court
stood two and two, Judge Furches
not sitting for the reason that he had
once been of counsel in the case.
The opinions in Ward VS.. Odell Man
ufacturing Company are written by
Justices Montgomery and Clark. JUS
tees Clark and Douglas hold that a
child eleven years of age. employed
in IL cotton mill, can recover dam
ages for personal injury sustained
through the negligent keeping and use
of workbench and tools in the mill.
Justice Montgomery and Chief Justice
Faircloth are of the opinion that he
cannot SO recover.
The court being thus divided the
decision of the lower court stands
this awarded the damages asked.
In course of his opinion Justice
Clark has to say touching child-labor
in factories:
''The humanity of the age has in
very many of the States placed on the
statute books laws forbdding the en-
ployment of children under IA years
of age in factories. So far as these
statutes are based upon the inhuman-
ity of shutting up these little pris-
oners eleven and one half to twelve
hours a day,( the ordinary factory
hours in this State according to the
States official publications. in the
sitting atmosphere of such buildings,
or depriving them of opportunity for
education, or using the competition of
their cheap wages to reduce those of
mature age--these are arguments on
matters of public policy which must
be addressed solely to the Legislative
department. But there is an aspect in
which the matter is for the courts,
that is, whether it is negligence per
Sc for great factory to take children
of such immature development of
mind and body and expose them for
10 hpurc nor 6aV TO the dancers in