The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-11-30

DER, the SNlutnCC WAS Ludl IhC 1liA0N
prisoners and Melton Belfield, (who was ,
killed in resisting arrest, entered .
store, where the deceased. stevenson
was q clerk, to purchase goods; that
quarrel eGsued between Melton Belficld
and the deceased, and after Melton had
applied abusive language to the deceased,
| the deceased got a pistol from the shell
whereupon the prisoners and Melton were
ordered by the proprietor TO leave, ana
all except Melton left the store; that one
of the prisoners came back and endeaY-
| ored to persuade Melton to leave. and he
finally left through the proprietor's IN
| fuence: that the deceased also lett the
store. and pistol firing Immediately conf
| repced-ten or fifteen reports being
! heard-and the deceased received aDout
seven wounds in the head; Held error i'll
| refusing to charge that, upon the evil
dence The jury could not find verdict
Of murder either in the first or second
degree.
| FINCH V. FINCH ct al, appellants. From
! Davidson. No error
Action Of ejectment. Plaintiff ard de-
| PENDANTS claim under a common source
plaintiff claiming directly under COM
missioner's deed under order OF court III
a proceeding instituted by plainun ana
other creditors of the defendant }. W. r.
to set aside deed from Joshua Coppel'
! which il is alleged j. W. f. caused TO
be made to his son to defradd creditors.
/ Defendant f. i. F. wife of }. w. ~,
| denied that the deed was made to }. w.
rs. son. and claimed under deed from
| Joshua Coppel to her, which was never
| registered. and which was alleged To
49,, =
also alleged that, at an execution sale,
the land was sold as her husband j. w.
F's land, and that she bought the same,
land also claimed to hold under that deed,
and offered in evidence the judgment and
execution against j. w. f. and sheflH
deed made hereunder.
Held that the commissioners deed Of
fered by plaintiff and the judgment roll
containing the order of sale, etc, in the
creditors action against defendant, were
competent as an estoppcl against defend
ants. and as a link in the plaintiff chain
of title from the common source.
Held further that the judge properly
CHARGED the jury that the burden was
upon the plaintiff to show that the deed
was made to the defendant J. w. + s.
son by Joshua Coppel, and that II they
found that the deed was so made. they
| should answer mo- to the issue Was
/ the decd from Coppel and wife for said
land executed to Mrs E. Lee Finch,
ana that the jury should not consider the
sheriTf's deed offered in evidence by the
defendants
JOINER. appellant V. SUGG. From Pitt.
Error.
in 1898 Joyner executed a deed to w,
to secure creditors Subject to and re-
serving. however. his homestead rights
therein as secured by the laws of North
Carolina" and the land was sold after
due advertisement subject" etc Gas
Iabove) and brought by d. with whom an
ARRANGEMENT was made that it should be
for Joyner's benefit and the deed was
made to D. subject" etc, and d. subse-
ouently conveyed "slbiect" cts. 10 JOY
ner's wife. Joyner died without issue
and the plaintiffs are his heirs at law.
His. wife afterwards ded-haying devised
the lard to her two nieces, the defendants
in possession.
Plaintiffs seek to establish that the
wife took under parol agreement that
she would hold the legal title to the
use of Joyner in fee-he having paid OF
a certain mortgage for the purchase
money--and the plaintiffs are entitled to
2 recover. Held that the evidence shows
no such egreement, and that the mere
payment of the purchase money gave
the plaintiffs no rights as heirs at law
r against the wife to whom Joyner lad a
right to give the property.
Plaintiffs further contend that the deed
to w subject" etc, is void for uncer-
tainty in quantity and quality of estate,
or at least that the reservation included
the reversion of the homestead and that
the heirs can recover: Held that the idea
hat the homestead is an ESTATE" that
has long since been abandoned and that
now Bank " Green IS ~ C. 247) the
homestead is not the creation of any new
estate. but there is conferred upon the
f honest ader a determinabe exemption
I, from the payment of debts in respect to
4 the particular property allotted to him
I and the assignment of it adds nothing
I to his title. but simply locates the eX-
cmpted part.
Held further that when Joyner eXecuteG
the deed in trust and reserved his home
stead rights. he reserved $1,000 worth Of
e land and under the facts of this case thl
c plaintiff heirs are owners of an Interest
in the land of the value of 81, 900 to be
\ estimated as of the time of execution o.
deed of trust and that the remainder OF
i the land passed by his deed to ". ant
from him to the wife, by whom it was
devised to the defendants.
! Eventually the meek may inherit the