The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-01-21
Supreme Court Opinions
(Reported by Jos. L. Seawell).

(From Cumberland).
justice of the peace has no authority
| to require witness to give bond for
his appearance
Where, in an action against a railroad
Company for illegal arrest and imprison-
ment, it appeared that the plaintiff, upon
informing defendants agent that per-
son known to plaintiff had just told plain
tiff that he wrecked DEFENDANTS train,
the plaintiff was arrested by a deputy
sheriff and carried with the officer in
search OF the person said to have caused
the wreck; that upon failing to find him
plaintiff was taken back to defendants
depot and made to swear out & war;
rant against the alleged wrecker before
Justice of the peace; that after the
warrant was issued defendants attorney
moved that plaintiff be put under a bond
Tor his appearance as a witness; that in
default of bond plaintiff was kept in GUS
tody of town officer for five days,
that upon plaintiffs inquring, while in
presence of the justice and defendants
attorney and agents, what they intended
to do with MIN, he was informed by de-
fendant's attorney and agent that they
would bring him to town with Them
it was held that the plaintiff was enti-
tied to punitive damages and that the
trial Judge properly instructed the jury
that defendant was responsible for the
acts of its agents done in the exercise of
authority conferred upon them that it
was no defence that the acts OF the agents
were ultra wires, for it matters not how
much in excess of its authority the acts
may be, If the acts were done by the
~. . 40
their authority either express of implied.
MCCALL V. SOUTHERN r. R. CO., APP
pellant fTrom Mecklenburg).
IN defendant introduces evidence af-
ter his refusal to non -suit under the
Act of 1897. he is held to have waived
any right he had under his motion; but
after introducing evidence he may renew
his motion, and the motion then stands
Upon consideration of the entire evil
dence of plaintiff and defendant
In an action for damages for personal
injuries sustained. it appeared that the
plaintiff was struck by one of defend
ants trains while standing with child.
between parallel tracks of defendant
which were about feet apart. a train
upon each track passing the plaintiff
the train which struck plaintiff saw her
and the child when his train was run
ming about miles an hour and in time
to have stopped the train before reach
ing plaintiff, but the conductor did not
think plaintiff was in danger.
Held that the trial Judge properly in
structed the jury that if the plaintiff
was in evident peril from which ordinary
care on her part could not save her,
and defendant saw her to have stopped
the train, the injury was due to defend
ants negligence. Held further that there
was no conflict between the charge that
the plaintiff was required to exercise
due care but If she failed TO do so and
thereby caused her injury, then her own
negligence is the proximate cause and
she cannot recover; sit was negligent for
her to go on the track and IF you say
that defendant was negligent because it
failed to stop the train and because it
could have stopped it $1,000. then de-
PENDANT Is responsible, Notwithstanding
her negligence. Her negligence in this
case would not be the proxiinate cause.
While she may have been negligent in
going on the track, if you find that after
she got in the position of peril the de-
PENDANT negligently failed to avoid the
injury, then it would not be contributory
negligence on her part
IN RE GORHAM ct al. (From TredelD
In a proceeding to punish as for con-
tempt the respondent is not entitled to
trial BY Jury and the findings of fact by
the judge are conclusive
The rule that tie disayowal of the inn
puted intent purges the contempt and re-
lieves the respondent applies only to
cases where the intent constitutes the
gravamon of the offence.
Where, in a proceeding to punish as
for contempt. it appeared from the facts
found by the Judge, that two of the
respondents attempted to influence the
verdict of a juror and that the Juror, who
was also a respondent, was unlawfully
influenced by his correspondents. ii was
held that the juror was property adj
Judged TO pay fine of fifty dollars and
that the correspondents were guilty of
an unlawful interference with the pro-
cceding of an action pending in court
I and the judgment imposing fine of $50
and sentencing them TO Imprisonment
i'll the county Jail for twenty days Is af-
frmed.
STATE Y. FOSTER ct al. appellants
(From Buncombe).
The prisoners were indicted for bur-
glary in the first degree---two as princi-
pals and. two as being present aiding and
abetting. They broke into store house
ard the room occupied by the clerk where
he regularly slept, the door between the
clerks room and the store being open at
the time. The outer doors and windows
were fastened and the prisoners procured
the clerk by trick and fraud to open
the door, when they forced their way in
and covered him with pistols, carrying
him back into his bed room and taking
his pistol and other things They opened
ard robbed the safe in the store. etc.
The clerk seized his own pistol. which
had been placed on the counter by the
prisoner who took it from him. and shot
two of the prisoners, and then the clerk
was shot.
The counsel for the prisoners contend
cd that Under (tnSutep 42d Lave IF 22q