The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-05

defendants permitting examination of
Tho cotton by the mills without producing
40 hill of Iading: but the demurrer hav-
mo admitted the wrongful demand of de-
murrage. it was error to sustain 1t on
that ground.
The cause of action remaining. being
demand for S99, does not affect the juris
dicticn of the Superior court; it is the
eum demanded in good faith, which con-
fers jurisdiction. Burrel VS.. Hughes. ZIG
~ c. $50; Martin VS. Goode, III n I.
2SS cited and approved.
STATE VS.. MCLAUGHLIN Judgment of
the Superior Court, directing a new
trial in the criminal court affirmed.
Unon trial of an indictment for rape in
the Criminal court, the prisoners counsel
examined the committing justice of the
peace, as to the evidence of the prosecu-
trix before him, for the purpose of show
ing discrepancies in the two statements
of the prosecutriX, and the justice recited
the evidence fully. On cross examination
the State proposed to ask the witness il
the testimony of the prosecutriX lin this
court was substantially the same as it
was on the hearing before him in the
Justices court" objection by prisoner was
overruled and the question admitted
Held, error. The question did not come
within the exceptions to the general rule
as to opinion evidence
DOGGETT VS.. ORDER OF THE GOLDEN
CROSS Affirmed.
Where the bylaws of a Benefit In
surance Company, having subordinate
lodges or companies, require the Off
GERS of the subordinate lodge to notify
the company of the death of member
of the subordinate company, with proofs,
etc, before payment of policy is made,
it is immaterial whether the beneficiary
did or did not give such notice; and where
the company refuses to pay the policy
solely upon the ground of forfeiture by
reason of the decedents failure to COM
ply with other bylaws of the company. it
is deemed to have waived the require
ment of notice. Insurance Company vs..
Schnider 100 L. s.
Defendant sought to avoid the policy on
the ground that the assured had forfeited
her interest in the certificate (policy) by
a failure to pay assessments and by
failure 20 comply with the rules and
regulations of the order. and undertook
10 show that the subordinate lodge, of
which the assured was a member had
been dissolved by the Supreme Lodge and
in consequence thereof all the members
of the subordinate lodge lost their rights
under the benefit policies.
There was no direct evidence that, for
the default shown, the subordinate lodge
had been dissolved, but defendant con-
tended that. under the general laws of
defendant, the subordinate lodge stood
dissolved for the default shown.
The general laws of defendant pro-
vide that whenever the amount due from
a subordinate lodge upon assessment is
not received by the treasurer within 20
days, the secretary should thereupon rec
ord that such subordinate lodge was dis
solved and forward notice Immediately
to the Supreme Commander" and to
the subordinate lodge so dissolved and
the laws also provided that the subordi-
nate lodge dissolved might afterwards be
reinstated within 80 days from the date
PENDANT cannot plead a forfeiture of the
policy upon the ground of dissolution Of
the subordinate lodge. when it is shown
that the notices required by the fore
going laws had not been given. and as
defendant had pleaded forfeiture upon
the ground of the beneficiary's failure to
pay assessment, it should not in stricc
law have been permitted to prove a dis
solution Of the lodge.