The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-26

and the certificate Of stock was deposited
as collateral security; Held that the
loan thereby became the debt of the
trustee as well as Of defendant company,
and that they are liable for losses sus-
tanned by the plaintiff association in pro-
portion to the number of certificates Of
stock held.
While the decisions Of courts of sister
States are entitled to great weight. yet
they are not to be treated as precedents
to be followed here. especially where it
would result in overruling decisions of
this court
STATE VS.. NEWCOMB. Affirmed
Where an Act creating a "Dispensary'
provides that there shall be no prosecu-
tion for violating its provisions until af-
ter the Dispensary has been opened and
that the dispensary shall be opened on
day named. an indictment for violating
the Act need not negative the statement
that the offence was committed prior
TO the opening of the Dspensary but
such fact is matter of defence to be
pleaded at the trial. The cases of Downs,
1l6 n. c. 1864; Lanier, So y. C. COS: Hea-
ton, 81 N. G. 542; Tomlinson. II N. C. 52S.
and Norman, Is n. C. Z22, cited and APP
proved.
VS.. ORR. Affirmed
Delivery is essential to a gift of per-
sOnal property whether the gift be inter
vivos or mortis causa. Symboical delv-
cry does not prevail in North Carolina,
and constructive delivery is sufficient only
where actual delivery is impracticable.
Upon the issue, Did defendant wrong
fully and fraudulently convert the tesla
tors moneys etc. the evidence was that
two years before testator's death he
moved to the house Of defendants (his
sister and niece) carrying with him a
large amount of money in coin and bills
and his niece testified that the testator
before his death, gave all the money to
her mother. and that she kept the money
for her mother till after testators death
when She removed it from the place where
it was deposited. PLAINTIFFS evidence
tended to show that when testator moved
to said house the gold was put by him
and one of the defendants in a small room
adjoining the one occupied by testator
and that it remained there till after his
DEATH that the other money was kept
under his pillow until the day before his
death. and when he was supposed to be
dying it was taken away by defendants
Held no error in the judges charge to
the effect that the burden of showing
wrongful conversion was on the plaintiff,
but that If the jury found that testator
Fad money in his possession when he
went to defendants house, and after his
death the money was in defendants pos
session and claimed as a gift, the bur
den was on defendants to prove such
Gift by the greater weight of the evil
hat
money to his agent with direction TO de-
liver it to defendants and the agent failed
to do so before testator's death. the
death OF testator revoked the agency.
Unless requested to do so. the statute
does not require the judge to charge the
jury where the facts at issue are few
and simple, and no principle of law is
involved. Code Sec Alb.
ARROWOOD VS.. S. C. AND GA. EXTEN-
SION r. r. co. Affirmed.
Maps are admissible in evidence to ex.
plain the witness testimony and as
part thereof.
Where an engineer, by reason of the
frequent curves in the track, cannot keen
a proper lookout it is his duty to require
the assistance of the fireman and
greater degree of care in keeping sucb
lookout is required when running over
portion of the track known to be
habitually used by the public. than at
places not SO used.
The public have no right to use a
railroad track as a pass-way and one so
using 1t is guilty of contributory negli-
gence; but this does not relieve the SER
wants of the company from using every
available means without endangering
the safety of passengers, to avoid injurine
such trespasser.
Evidence Of witnesses who went to the
place where the intestate was killed. and
on dark night (such as that on which
the accident occurred) made observations
CT the light cast by one of defendants
engines, was competent to go to the Jury
for what it was worth 1t was also
competent for the jury to consider the
testimony of the engineer that he could
have seen the intestate and did not see
him WIN it was his duty to have seen
him.
ROUSS VS.. KRAUSS. Affirmed.
Action on note executed by partners
in trade. which defendant signed as sure
ty, to he held as collateral for the in
debtedness of the firm to the plaintiff.
The principal and surety signed con-
temporaneous agreement that the firm,