The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-03-02

right under the contract TO trees OF the
kind mentioned which are UNIT for any
thing but fire wood. The defendant
claims the right TO remove all trees Of
the kind mentioned whether for the pun
pose of converting them into lumber or
| to use otherwise; Held that the contract
restricts the defendants rights TO those
trees only of the kind mentioned which
are fit for lumber.
GUANO co. VS.. TOWN OF TAR
BORO. In plaintiffs appeal, no error.
In defendants appeal, reversed.
4 tax not specifically mentioned in a
town charter may be levied by the town
by virtue Of an incorporation into its
charter of certain sections of The Code
which authorize the levying of the
tax.
Section Il of chapter 377. Acts 1899.
which provides that "Whenever any
manufacturer Of fertilizers, etc. shall
have paid the charges hereinbefore pro
vided. his goods shall not be liable TO any
further tax :. by city. town or
county" does not prevent Il town from
levying a tax upon such manufacturer
for the privilege of manufacturing guano
within its corporate limits.
MITCHELL VS.. ALLEY. Affirmed.
Under the provisions of sections 4 and
20, chapter 157 Laws of 1895, a ticket
containing more than three candidates
for justice Of the peace for one township
cannot be counted unless there is city
or incorporated town Of one thousand in
habitants in the township and such city
or town is entitled to one justice besides
the three allowed by the act for the
township.
RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS VS..
KILBY. Affirmed.
The plaintiffs claimed the entire Stall
ings patent of $40 acres except 100 acres
owned by Only, and introduced success
sive deeds to connect their title there
with. In some of these deeds. the plain
titfs contended, an undivided interest In
common with others was conveyed: but
they claim the whole OF the Stallings
patent by the last two deeds offered,
which purport to convey the entire Stall
ings patent. and the plaintiffs did not
| undertake to connect their title, through
the last two deeds offered. with those
| first introduced, some of which conveyed
only portions of the land granted TO
| Stallings;
Held that the claim Of tire plaintiffs
| under the last two deeds purporting to
| convey the entire Staliings patent. was
an abandonment of the claim of an
undivided interest IN common under the
prior deeds offered. as the plaintiffs did
not connect their title under the hast
| two deeds with title under the prior
deeds. and the ruling Of the court below
| that plaintiffs had failed to show title
| to the land in controversy is affirmed.
GUPTON VS.. HAWKINS. Affirmed
When the statute of limitations is
pleaded the burden of proving the debt
not barred is upon the plaintiff.
The operation of the statute cannot
be suspended by mere endorsements OF
credits upon bond by the oblgee. which
are only declarations in his favor: but
proof of payment * required. lis y.
c. 30; IS y. c. so; So y. c. 3; 81
y. c. $50.
Ii Is not competent under section 500
of The Code for an obligec to bond
sued on, 10 testify that the payments
We're msde by the deceased obIigor al
the date of the credits endorsed upon the
bond Bum VS.. Todd. 107 y. c. 266:
Lockhart vs.. Bell, So y. c. 443 and so
y. c. 400, distinguished