The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-11-03
Supreme Court Decisions.
reported by Jos I. seaweIll

reported by Jos. L. Seawell)
D. r. trimmer, appellant, VS.. j. l.. Cor
man and wife, from Columbus. Contract
TO purchase land. Defective title. Pre-
sumption. Referees findings.
The presumption of death arising from
the absence of person for seven wears
is subject to rebuttal.
referees finding of fact will NOT he
sustained when in conflict with Tho all
legations and admissions in the pleadinps
One who has contracted TO p,,rchasa
land will not be compelled to take a de-
iectivo title although the grantor offers
to indemnity such purchaser
State VS.. Louis Council petitionar
from Cumberland. Petitions TO rehaar
Supreme Court Rules. Criminal actions
Juror.
The jurisdiction of the judiciary over
criminal action ceases when the decision
of the Supreme Court in such case has
been certified to the Governor as required
by chapter 1872, laws 1887.
The Supreme Court has no power TO
grant a petition to rehear or a new trial
Tor newly discovered evidence in a crimi-
nal case.
The Supreme Court justices are not re-
CURED to render their decisions by written
opinions in cases where they deem it UNI
necessary.
The improper manner in which a Juror
was sworn is not ground for objection
after verdict
Sallie Mitchell, administrative, appel
liant, VS.. Raleigh Electric Company, from
Wake. Electric Companies Negligence.
Where an electric light company per-
mitted an abrasion in the insulation of
its wire to remain for two years in vio-
lation of city ordinance, and an en-
ploye of a telephone company was Killed
by the wire he was stringing, falling upon
the uninsulated portion of the electric
company's wire, there was prima facie.
negligence upon the part of the company
and the court will presume that it had
notice of the abrasAn in it's wire and. in
the absence of contributory negligence.
will hold it liable for the injury resulting
therefrom.
Frank Smith VS.. w. and w. Railroad
Co., appellant. from Sampson. Master
and servant. Assumption of risk.
1t is not the masters duty to warn the
servant when the service to be performed
is obviously dangerous and when the
servant has sufficient discretion to appre-
ciate the peril. his continuance in the
employment is at his own risk.
Where a servant engaged in work which
Is obviously dangerous, is ordered by the
master to change the manner of perform
ing the service to one which the servant
is aware is more dangerous, the servant
in obeying the order. assumes the hazards
naturally incident to the change. Shadd
VS.. Railroad 116 n. G. 96S and Halton VS.
Railroad, 127 N c. 255, distinguished
W. II. Harrington, appellant, VS.. P. E.
Hattc- administratriX, from Pitt. Ad-
mi~'~.~~to~ Purchaser. Judgment lien
Where. in a petition to sell land for
assets. begun before the clerk. ii is found
that a purchaser of the land from the
intestate in his lifetime for valuable con-
sideration and without knowledge of any
fraud, has acquired valid title to the in
terest of the vendor 1t was HILL that the
court below properly rcfU judgment
compelling the adninistr@ o sell. as
il appeared that the intct, ata had no in
tcrest in the land. The c" itor here Is
entitled to a sale of the realty by virtue
of his judgment lien--all persons inter-
ested being parties.
j. S. Began and wife VS.. c. c. Railroad
Company. appellant, from Richmond.
Evidence. Contributory Negligence.
The court cannot direct a verdict
where the evidence is conflicting.
Contrbutory negligence Of the injured
rarity will not defeat recovery If il Is
shown that the defendant might have
avoided 80 o@~s1ent by exercising reas-
cradle care and prudence.