The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-19

patible and the acceptance of the second
office vacated the first. The decision was
unanimous.
THE next case was Shannonhouse. VS..
Withers. This was a contest as to who
had been elected cotton weigher for the
town of Charlotte. 1t was decided in
the lower court in favor of the defend
ant This decision was reversed and a
new trial awarded. There was no dis
sent.
1.-THE next case was Harris VS. Wright.
1t involved the title to the office of Mayor
of Wilmington. The opinion was written
by Chief Justice Faircloth and Judges
Clark and Montgomery wrote concurr
ing opinions.
THE next case was Barnhill VS. Thomp
son. This was a oaSe similar to that
from Bladen, the defendants being county
commissioners who eleeted themselves
school commissioners. There was no dis
sent
The next case was Hotelling VS.. Tay
lor. The defendants had been appointed
additional commissioners for Vance coun-
ty and the old board sought to turn
them cut The court decided in favor
of the new commissioners, Judge Douglas
dissenting.
THE next case was Holt vs.. BRISTOL This
involved the right of parties to be drec-
tors in the Morganton School fo' the
Blind. Holt was a director in this in
stituton. His time was out but the Leg
slature failed to elect a successor, so
the Governor decided TO appoint one
The court, however, sustained Hol, and
said there was no vacancy for the Gov
ernor. to FILL There was no dissent, /
wrote the opinion.
1.-The next case was Worth VS.. Stew
art Bros, for the recovery of money IL
legally paid for State printing. We de-
cided against the Stewards There were
two of these cases. the last one OH their
bond We held the bondsmen liable.
wrote both of those opinions. There was
no dissent.
1.-THE next case was Ryan VS.. Lipscomb.,
This did not involve title % an office but
it involved jurisdiction that the Legis-.
, lature had attempted to confer on judge
Ewart,. In this it was held that the juris-
diction could not be conferred, The opinion
was written by Judge Clark. There WAS
no dissent.
'"The next case l have is what is called
Days case, involving t;tle to the Office
of Superintendent of the Penitentiary 1t
vas decided in favor of Day, and here
a division of the court commenced in
all of what might be termed office hold
ing cases. Judge Montgomery wrote the
opinion, putting it upon the doctrine of
Hoke VS.. Henderson, Wood VS.. Bellamy,
and ether similar cases decided ~ this
court. From this time on there was not
a similar case in which there vas not
a division Of the cotfrt
"The next case was that of Wilson VS.
Jordan, Involving title n RE office Of
clerk of the criminal court of Buncombe
county. 1t was decided in favor Of Will
son, who held the office before the passage
Of the act under which Jordan claimed
the office. Judge Clark dissented.
'The next case was Cherry VS.. Burns.
This involved title to the office of Keeper
Of the Capitol Burns contended that it
vas a constitutional office and the APP
continent being given to the Governor, and
that the Legislature couldn't change the
method of appointment. We decided i'll
favor of Cherry. | wrote the opinion
and in doing so | remember ] had 10
over-rule an obiter of Chief Justice Pear
son, who in the Bledsoe case, had named
Keeper of the Capitol as a constitutional
office.
1.-THE next case was Cunningham VS..
Sprinkle. This involved title to the office
IF member of the State Board Of Agri
culture. We decided in favor of Cum
ningham and the opinion was unani-
nous, Judge Douglas writing it. IN this
case the court issued peremptory man
damus.
"The next case was Abbott VS. Bedding
field This involved title to the Office of
Railroad Commissioner The opinion III
this case was put upon the doctrine 81
Hoke VS.. Henderson and was in Ahbott5
favor. wrote the leading opinion and
Judge Clark dissented.
.sThe next case was Mccall VS.. Webb
1t involved the solicitorship of Buncombe
criminal court. 1t was decided in favor
of Mccall. In the next case, Mccall vs.
Zachary, the same question was involved
and the decision was the same. | wrote
the opinion. and Judge Clark dissented. In
the case of Mccall VS.. Eaves, involving
the solicitorship in Mcdowell county, we
also decided for Mccall. In cases involv-
ing the solicitorship of Burke, Yancey,
Caldwell and Forsyth, however, we de-
cided against Mccall. In these last Jour
there was no dissent; in the others there
was.
1.-THE next case was White VS.. Hill, to
try title to the office of Shell-fish Com
missioner. Chief Justice Faircloth wrote
the decision of the court. Judge Clark
dissented
"The next case was Green VS.. Owen,
involving title to the office of school
commissioner. 1t was decided in favor of
two of the plaintiffs and against one.
Judge Clark dissented as to the two.
1.-THE next case is Bryan VS.. Patrick
involving the title to the presidency of
the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad.
1t was decided against Bryan, Judge Clark
dissenting. Also in the next case, Rail-
road VS.. Dortch, involving right of d.
rectors of the Atlantic and North Caro-
lima Railroad to act. We held against
Dortch. In this case, both Judges Clark
and Montgomery dissented.
"The next case was the Daily case
from Granville, TO try title TO the office
of echool commissioners; as was also