The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-10-26
Supreme Court Digest.


Where, in an indictment for practicine
medicine without license, it was found in
the special verdict that defendant treat
ed diseases by kneading flexing and rub
bing the body, by the application OF wa
ter and without drugs or medicines, and
that defendant practiced hynotism, etc..
in endeavoring to effect cure, a judgment
of not guilty was properly entered.
ARLINGTON " ARLINGTON, appellant
From Wake. Error.
The former decision in this case (127 N.
c. 1901 to the effect that the plaintiff s
decree in Illinois for alimony against de-
PENDANT was a final judgment and binding
against defendant in this State, although
the divorce was a vinculo. as it appeared
that alimony was allowed by the laws of
Illinois in actions of absolute divorce, and
Article " Sec. of the Contitution of the
United States required this court to give
the same validity to the Illinois judgment
as it has in that State, is affirmed but
it is now held that the Illinois judgment
was a provable claim and the defendants
discharge in bankruptcy is a discharge
against said judgment.
COLEMAN ct al V. HOWELL ct al, ap-
pellants. From Columbus. No error.
Where the laws of another State pro-
vide that judgment of an ordinary dis
charging an administrator in full settle
ment may be collaterally attacked for
fraud, such judgment may be so attacked
in this State in an action to restrain the
widow of the administrator from remov
ing his property from this State or con-
verting the same and for appointment OF
a receiver; and said judgment does not
come within the provisions of Article w
Sec of the United States Constitution
THAT full faith and credit shall be given
in each State to the. 49,. judicial proceed
ings of every other State.''
WHITFIELD ct al, appellants " GARRIS
ct al From Wayne. Affirmed.
Where real estate shall be devised to
any person, the same shall be held and
construed to be a devise in fee simple
unless such devise SHALL in plain and ex-
press words, show. or it shall be plainly
intended by the will. or some part thereof
that the testator intended to convey an
estate of less dignity" Code, Sec. 21SO.
Devise to F. w. land in event of the
death of said F. w. leaving no heirs of
his own body" then to the three sons of
l.. S. W.; Held q devise in fee to F. w.
defeasible upon his dying without issue.
MARTIN, appellant v. BANK OF FAY
ETTEVILLE. From Cumberland. New
Trial.
Amendments to pleadings may be al
lowed or refused at the discretion of the
trial judge, where the same make no
change in the cause of action and do not
mislead the opposing party, and the rul-
ing is not renewable. But if made upon
the ground of want of power, it is re-
y:ewable.
In this case, where the object of the
suit was to have defendant declared
trustee for plaintiff, no tender is neces-
sarv
The right to demur ore tenus was waiv-
ed by defendant in previously filing an
answer denying the right of plaintiff as
claimed in the complaint.
STATE, appellant V. GOULDING. From
Carteret. Error.
Criminal faction !. charging defendant
with taking away CLAIMS from the clam
bed of one G. in North River in violation
of Section 1898 of The Code, and present
ing the question whether a private clam
bed in public waters is now authorized
The court hold. in reviewing the various
Acts of Assembly upon the subject that
so far as this matter is concerned, Sec
ton 1891 is additional to. and not in
conflict with the Act of 1901, Oh. 250, and
that at no time has there been a repeal
OF Section 1898 making it misdemeanor
10 take CLAIMS or oysters from their beds
without consent of the owner.
Held further. that the only change has
been in the alternate enactment and re-
peal of Section 1891 as to the manner of
allowing private beds to be laid off in
public waters. There is now a new
method provided for laying them off, but
the old authority to lay off still exists.
If the bed in this case has not been
properly laid off, it is matter of defense
and not ground for motion to quash.
BURNS & WIFE V. WOMBLE, appellant
From Chatham. Error.
Where B. and wife made a deed of
mortgage in which they covenant that the
husband is the owner of the land in fee
simple, they are estopped to deny that
lie was the owner, and~have no right to
complain of judgment and writ of pos
session against them in an action of
cjeetment.
The claim of the wife that she has
Coed to one-fourth of the land might
have given her right to intervene in
the former action against her husband,
hut she would have no right in this action
10 attempt to enforce such claim by pre-
venting the sheriff from executing the
process of the court
The sheriff. being authorized to dis
possess the plaintiffs. committed no tres
pass for which he is liable.
Plaintiffs compromised with sheriff for
alleged trespass for which this action is
brought-each paying a certain sum Of
money-and this was a discharge of the
defendant
A party may have action against each
Il several trespassers, but satisfaction of
enc Judgment is discharge of all, even
though 1t is stipulated that it is not to
be discharge Of the others.
SHANKLE, appellant V. WHITLEY.
From Richmond. Appeal dismissed.
Where, upon issues found by a Jury. it
was necessary to have an account stated
and the cause was referred to state the
account, it is premature to appeal before
final Judgment upon the coming in of the