The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-16

the blood ON the two children and the
account kept by the prisoner of money
he had given the murdered woman. The
opinion of the court then goes on to say:
The defence was not put upon the
ground that the prisoner did not COM
NIT the crime, but upon the ground
of mental incapacity which relieved
him from criminal guilt: and, if not
to entirely relieve him. that it rem
dered him incapable of exercising
"deliberation and premeditation.'
The PRAYERS for instruction were
intended to present this question,
and the prisoner produced evidence
tending to establish this contention.
But the State produced the evidence
of n number of witnesses tending
to show that he did have sufficient
capacitv to commit the crime-to
mediate and deliberate. On this
point the court in its opinion, goes
on to say:
Then, admitting that the prisoner pro-
duced some witnesses who testified to the
want of sufficient capacity to enable the
prisoner to reflect to mediate ana deIlD-
crate, still, when the State had pro-
duced evidence showing that he had de-
liberated and meditated about fixing up
the trouble with Ella, by which he said
to the witness Johnson; that he had
tried to explain away the evidence or
blood on his hands and clothing, and pro-
duced what purported to be an account
with Ella, which he had kept to show that
he had treated Ella rght-enforced by
the evidence of a number of witnesses
who testified that his mind was good
made it an issue of fact for the jury which
the Judge could not try, and the prison
er's exceptions were properly refused.
The Jury. with all the evidence before
them. under proper instructions from the
court have said that the prisoner is
guilty of murder in the first degree. And
in saving this, they have said the pris-
oner did have sufficient mind and capacity
to premeditate and to deliberate.
The facts of this tragedy are shocking
shocking to the utmost degree. If
he had capacity to commit this shocking
crime, it would seem that he should suf-
fer the extreme penalty of the law The
jury have said he had such capacity, and
we have no right to review or reverse
their verdict.
There is no error.
Another case of local interest de-
cided yesterday is that of Capital
Printing Company vs.. City OF Raj
eigh.
In this case the plaintiff printing
company alleged that its property
was damaged by an overflow of water
turned into store room by negli-
gence of the city during a storm III
May. 1898.
IL 81 Al a
dence i'm the lower court the defend
ant moved to dismiss the action. as in
case of non-suit. His Honor held that
there was no evidence of negligence
By the defendant to go to the jury,
aud rendered judgment of non-sut
To this ruling the plaintiff eN-
cepted and took an appeal.
The Supreme Court reverses the
ruling of the lower court and sends
the case back for trial by jury.
The opinion is written by Chief JUS
tce Faircloth and the substance OF
il is contained in the following:
In the case at bar the defendant relies
on evidence that it had skilfGIy prepared
every reasonable protection against dam
age, and that the storm on the night of
May 10, 1898, was so extraordinary and
abnormal, that it should not be held
liable for the result, because it was not
produced by its negligence. On the other
hand. the plaintiff relies on evidence
showing that the lower end of the drain
way was smaller than the upper end, and
that the defendant had the knowledge and
the experience of similar rain fall in
1894. against which it provided, but al
lowed the improved protection to be-
come worthless before May IL, 1898, which
improved condition would have prevented
the overflow. The plaintiff insists that
these facts tend to show negligence and
culpable liability.
From this condensed statement of the
evidence. at present admitted to be true,
we think there is room for different con-
illusions to be drawn by reasonable men.
We intimate no opinion on the weight of
the evidence. either way. nor on the ulti-
mate liability of the defedant, either in
its quasi judicial or ministerial charac-
ter. Such questions, TO which the argu-
ment before us was mainly addressed,
were not considered in the Superior court,
and are not before this court. Reversed.
IMPORTANT BANKRUPTCY DECISION.