The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-25

diligence have prevented the consequences
| Of such act. Here, the accident occurred
the act Of some outside party in pull
ing out the spikes, thus making what is
called in railroad parlance a Jack
switch" The burden of proving failure
of legal duty in such cases, rests upon the
plaintiff, but when that fact is proved or
admitted then the burden of proving all
such facts as are relied on by the COM
pany to excuse its failure, rests upon the
company.
STATE VS.. UTLEY Affirmed.
In an indictment for attempting to
poison, an averment that the prisoner
knew the deadly character of the sub
stance is not essential.
The weight of the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses are for the
jury to consider, and not the court.
CHEEK VS.. SYKES. Error.
The plaintiff Cheek contracted to sell
a tract of land to one Pickett and took
Pickett's note for the purchase money
and gave him bond to make title upon
payment of same. Pickett made some
payments upon the price of the land and
rented the land to Sykes, agreeing that
be credited on the purchase price. There
after, without Picketts knowledge, Sykes
rented the land from Cheek, agreeing to
become Cheeks tenant When this be-
came known to Pickett he forbade Sykes
to pay the rent to Cheek; held in an ac>
ton by Cheek to GUST Sykes, that the
trial judge committed error in refusing
Pickett's motion to intervene and defend
his interest in the land.
HALL VS.. FISHER. Error,
Plaintiff alleged that he sold a lot
to defendant for 81 600, and took in part
payment another lot owned by defend
ant; that as a part of the consideration
of purchase by plaintiff of defendants
lot, the defendant agreed verbally at the
time, that he would open street lead
ing to the lot conveyed to plaintiff; that
defendant has failed to comply with this
agreement, and the complaint prays for
damages The answer denies the agree
ment and alleges that defendant did not
own the property over which the street
would have to be run; that defendant was
anxious to open the street and endeav
Ored to purchase the right of way but
was unable to do so; held that as the
plaintiff contends that the agreement
to open the street was a part of the
purchase price of the land conveyed to
plaintiff. the agreement is void under the
Statute of Frauds and cannot Re en-
forced nor damages awarded against
defendant for failure to comply there
with.
MOREHEAD VS.. HALL. New trial.
Where a deed on it's face conveys only
one-half of a well described tract and
fails to describe the particular part
conveyed, the deed will be construed as
conveying a one-half undivided interest
in the land. Grogan VS.. Bache, 10 Cal. 610.
A joint demurrer by all the defend
ants will be overruled if the complaint
sets forth a good cause of action as to
any one of the defendants. 1G3 N. C. 315;
10 n. c. 423.
STATE VS.. HAY. New trial.
The Legislature has power to author
iZe county and municipal authorities to
require compulsory vaccination, and
Chapter 214 of the Laws, 1898, providing
that the execution of a town ordinance
requiring compulsory vaccination shall
he under the direction Of the local board
of health or committee appointed by the