The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-15
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
reported by Joseph l.. SewallD

reported by Joseph l.. Sewall)
STATE VS.. PAGE SMITH. NO ERROR.
Where one violates the law establish
ing dispensary in a town by selling
spirituous liquor, he is also liable to in
dictment under the general act for re
| failing without license.
| STATE VS.. HANDY. NO ERROR.
The possession of pistol carried by
| one while off his own premises is prlma
facie evidence of it's concealment, and
the burden of rebutting criminal intent
is upon the party charged State VS..
Brown, 125 n. c. 704, cited and approved.
Where upon trial of an Indictment for
carrying a concealed weapon on it ap-
| peared that the defendant had made
murderous assaults with the weapon. a
| sentence of Imprisonment in jail for two
years is neither cruel nor excessive.
One convicted OF several offences at
the same time may be sentenced to sew
eral terms of imprsonment-one to COM
mence after the ending of the other.
| The defendant in this case was tried
and convicted in Wilkes county, and the
sentence was that he work the roads of
Il
was authorized by section chapter 5S1,
Laws 1899 and the prerequisites of the
act are presumed to have been complied
with \
| LEWIS VS.. OVERLY. NEW TRIAL
The Supreme court will not review ex-
ceptions taken below to the judges over
| ruling exceptions to a referees findings
| of fact. when such exceptions are not
| based upon the ground that there was
| no evidence to sustain the findings of
| fact.
The presumption of grant from the
State is not rebutted by a failure to
| show that all the parties held possession
| during the time necessary to raise such
presumption; it is sufficient to show
merely that the time during which the
| successive grantees held amounts to Il
years. Reed VS.. Earnhart 80 n. c., 90
IredelD SO.
| MOTLEY VS. FINISHING co. AFFIRM
ED.
In an action to recover damages alleged
to have resulted to a bailorS tobacco by
reason Of the bailee's unslillful and neg
ligent storing of the same, it was not
error for the trial judge to refuse to In
struct the jury that if the plaintiff knew
that defendant did not possess skill or
knowledge in storing tobacco. and made
10 pretension to such skill or knowledge
The defendant is bound only for rea-
sonable exercise of the skill he possess
cd or of the judgment which he could
,mploy, and if loss resulted from deten-
lants want Of due skill, defendant is
lot chargeable.
In such case, in the absence of any
lgreement to the contrary, receipt by
laintiff of a part of the damage susT
aimed will not prevent recovery for the
alance of the damage sustained. More
lead VS. Brown, 81 n. c. 367 cited and
distinguished.
<ERNER VS.. COTTAGE co. AFFIRM
ED.
Where the Board of County Commits
toner's purchases land at a sale for non
ayment of taxes, they thereby become
Mortgages and can proceed to collect the
axes only by foreclosure. and an as
ignee of the commissioners can proceed
My in the same way. Wilcox VS.. Leach,
% n. c. "A, cited and approved.
A deed for land sold for non payment
f taxes. given by the sheriff to an as
ignee of the commissioners, where the
and has been bid in by the commission
rs at the tax sale, is valid as mort
gage.
)UNN VS.. W. & W. RAILROAD. NEW
TRIAL.
The plaintiffs evidence tended to show
hat the defendant negligently permitted
IS engine to stand on its side track in
tn no Tll1ly
ng it dangerous for citizens to drive
heir teams along the adjacent street.
Defendants evidence tended to show
egligence on the part of plaintiff in that
e had just driven by the engine, when
is horses were frightened by the engine
nd shyed, and that when he returned
nd again passed the engine he was eth
not holding his reins at all or was
gliding them so loosely that he could not
ontrol the horses, when they became
frightened, and for that reason they dash
upon the street curbing and injured
he plaintiff.
Held that the trial Judge committed
rror in refusing to charge the jury that,
at the time the wagon and horses were
bout to pass the engine the plalntlH
7as not holding the reins, or IL he was
lOIding them so loosely IndI ne Couiu
OF control in the event of sudden fright,
he plaintiff was guilty of contributory
eglgence; and that if the plaintiff had
eason to believe that the horses were
fraid of the engine, it was the plain
ifs duty; when re-passing the engine,
keep tight hold upon the reins, and
he failed to do so he was guilty OF
ontributory negligence. Held further
hat such error was not cured by the
Judges charging the jury; that If they
elieved plaintiff was driving his horses
a careless manner, either not holding
he reins or holding them so loosely that
re could not control the horses, when
| hey became frightened, this was the
,roximate cause of the injury, and the
laintiff was guilty of contributory negli-
:ence.
TATE VS.. BARNES. REVERSED.
The word dealer" implies an habitual
curse of dealing, and the word trader
nplies one who engages in trade or in
| ne business of guying and selling; so n.
= 479. 81 N c. 561