The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-04-13
Suprme Court Decisions
(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell)


VIRGINIA CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO.,
appellant VS.. KIRVEN. From New Han
over. New trial.
Upon an issue as to the owner of cot
ton attached to satisfy a debt, it is COM
petent to prove the admissions of the
debtor by one who heard the evidence
of witness at a former trial, who has
since died; and the statement of the
case on appeal in the former trial, signed
by counsel for both sides is also admis-
sible to show the evidence of the de-
ceased witness as to the debtors adnlis-
sions.
THOMAS & MERCER, appellant VS..
COOKSEL. From New Hanover. New
trial.
Where personal property is delivered
to married woman, not living with her
husband, under a written contract which
provides that the property is rented
on condition that the owner is to be
paid a certain amount per week until
the value of the property is paid. and
that any neglect therein shall entitle
the owner TO repossess the property, Held
to be a conditional sale.
An action under such contract to re-
CONSl ttIS NNdlueO DIT So0D upon
default in payment, is not equitable in it's
nature, and it was error to dismiss upon
the ground that a justice of the peace
had no jurisdiction. Heath VS.. Morgan.
III N. c. 5O4.
STATE VS.. LUCINDA GooDE, appellant.
From Wake. Error.
Upon the trial of an indictment for as
sault with a deadly weapon, it appeared
that the prosecutor went with wagon
to the home of defendant, a woman, to
coellct money due by defendant for furni-
ture; that the prosecutor was a stran-
ger to defendant and that she invited him
in and offered him a seat; that the
prosecutor told defendant that he had
come for the bed stead or the money
due for it: that defendant replied that
she did not have the money and asked
prosecutor to wait until her husband
came, whereupon prosecutor jumped from
his seat swearing that he would take
the bed stead or Ego to hell trying:
that he then walked to the bed and
threw a table CLOTH which was upon
it, to the floor; that defendant told him
to leave and wait until her husband came
and not to take any more things from
the bed: that prosecutor again swore and
SAID he would take the bed, and threw
off clothing that was lying upon it, pulled
off the covering and began to throw
hack the mattress, whereupon the defend
ant picked up abaseball bat and walked
to the bed and ordered prosecutor to
desist; that prosecutor then cursed de-
PENDANT. drew back his fist and defendant
struck him with the bat. The Judge
charged that defendant was, upon her own
testimony guilty of using excessive
force and to render a verdict of guilty;
Held, error. The question Of excessive
force was for the jury and not the
court.
DAVIS SULPHUR ORE CO., appellants,
VS.. POWERS, GIBBS & c. From New
Hanover. No error.
Plaintiff sued to recover a sum alleged
to be due Defendant in the course of
the dealings sent to plaintiff an itemized
statement of account showing balance
due plaintiff, with check covering the
amount, which was received and cashed
by plaintiff. The evidence in the case
vas uncontradicted and no fraud, irnpo-
sition or mistake was shown. The court
charged the jury that if they believed the
evidence to find in favor of defendant.
helu, no eIToI. I1dIIiS Vs. mul Phy' AA'
~ C. 81.
MARCUM vs. MARSH, appellant. From
Hartford. New trial.
Action by the father of the girl against
the Register of Deeds and his bonds
men to recover the amount of the pen
atty imposed by Section 1916 of The Code
for issuing marriage license without
reasonable inquiry as to the age OF the
girl, etc.
The defendant testified that the father
"a stranger to him) of the male applied
for the license, and he asked him the
names of the parties contemplating mar
raige, their color, names Of parents, place
! of residence, age of the male and the
female. ETC., and he replied that the par
J ties ard their parents lived in Virginia
! and that the reason they came to this
! State to have the marriage ceremony per-
! formed was that the girl wished to be
| an ong her friends here and that the man
was q and the girl 10; nothing was said
! about runaway marriage. Defendant
| further testified that he explained the
! law to the father and administered an
| cath to him, touching these matters, in
presence of a witness, placed the oath
on the license, read it to him and ex-
planned what it meant The court charged
| the jury that if they believed the defend
| ants own evidence he had not made such
| reasonable inquiry as rendered it prob
able that there was no legal impeachment
to the marriage, and they should find
the issues in favor of plaintiff. Held.
error. Walker VS.. Adams, 109 N. G. 4Sl;
! Williams VS. Hodges. 101 N. G. 300; Cole
/, VS.. Laws 104 N. C. 651; Agent vs. Willis,
124 N e. 30, cited
! An order allowing plaintiff to amend
| by making the State a party plaintiff in
a suit upon an official bond may be made
in this court under Section 965 of The
Code. Grant VS.. Rogers, % N. c. on p.
760.