The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-12-07
Supreme Court Digest.
(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell.)

PHILLIPS vs. WISEMAN ct al, appel
lants. From Mitchell. Reversed.
The husband of plaintiff abandoned her
and took up with the defendant and con-
tinuously lived in adultery with her till
his death-devising his land to defendant.
The plaintiff. widow, dissented from the
will and instituted proceedings for dover.
After the separation, the plaintiff also
lived in adultery and the defendant set
up this fact in bar of plaintiffs right to
dover. Judgment for plaintiff and de-
PENDANT appealed; Held, error. The
plaintiff is barred from recovering dover.
Code, section 2102.
CITY OF WILSON, appellant VS.. TOWN
OF SALEM. Error.
Where a corporation has it's place of
business in one town and a part of it's
personal property stored in another town,
such property is taxable in the town
where the corporations place of bust
ness is located.
BEACH vs. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.,
appellant From Burke. No error.
A foreign corporation which has
"dmesticated'' in this State under chap
ter 62, laws 1899, becomes thereby a
domestic corporation and cannot remove
an action against it to the Federal Court
upon the ground of local prejudice.
TATE, appellant, VS.. INSURANCE CO.
From Rutherford. Affirmed
Where life insurance policy of a
mutual benefit company provides that the
premium may be paid by 70 per cent. in
cash and so per cent. in certificates of
ho&
shall be lien on the policy and. in the
event of non-payment of premium by the
assured, only the met reserve, less any
Indebtedness to the company shall be
applied to the extension of the policy,
the policy in such case will lapse for
non payment of premium where the ac-
cumulated profits due the assured are
not sufficient to pay the premium after
deducting the Indebtedness due the COM
pany. ms. Co. VS.. butcher, sc u s., 26s,
distinguished.
STATE VS.. PEOPLES, appellant. From
Mecklenburg. Error
Where defendant, before pleading to an
indictment for gaming and before the
jury were ompaneled, moved to quash
the bill upon the ground that the grand
jury were improperly selected in that
they were not selected from a revised
jury list as required by The Code; that
the jury when last revised in 1898, was
altered so as to discriminate against the
negro race, to which defendant belonged,
and that the jurors who found the bill
against the defendant were summoned
with the purpose of making such discrim-
nation, by reason of which defendant
was deprived of a fair trial, etc, and
defendant moved for subpoena duces
tecum to the commissioners, registers Of
deeds and sheriff. 1t was held that de-
PENDANTS remedy was by motion to quash
and the trial judge committed error in
refusing the motion upon the ground that
the court had no power to grant it,
Held further, that the discrimination
alleged to have been made against the
defendant was in violation of the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, as has been held
by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
JUSTICE VS. GALLERT, appellant. From
Rutherford Affirmed.
Exception to judges failure to charge,
as asked, when the requests for instruc-
tion are oral, cannot be sustained Code,
section Ais.
Where there is no request that the
judge put his instructions in writing, but
the judge made some disconnected notes
in which he told the jury to answer
yes" (Which was erroneous), but the
judge states in the case on appeal that
in fact he told them to answer mo-" this
court is bound by the judges statement.
But if the charge containing the word
''yes" had been handed to the jury, this
would have been reversible error in this
case. though yes" was inadvertently
written by the judge.
A charge, written out, at request (sec-
ton 4l4) should be signed and filed with
the clerk, and becomes a part of the
record.
Evidence that the defendant admins
traitor told the plaintiffs testatrix that
he would pay claim when he got the
money and had made the same promise
eight months after the death of defend
ants intestate and that defendant stated
that he knew the intestate had had the
money: Held, competent to go to the jury
upon the question as to the bar of the
statute.
DUNN VS.. w. & W. RAILROAD CO., ap-
pellant. From Duplin. New trial.
Where the court below, after a juror
had been asked by plaintiff as to whether
he had formed an opinion, ETC., found
him to be a competent and acceptable
juror and afterwards allowed the plain
tiff to challenge him peremptorily; Held,
error.
RATCLIFF VS.. RATCLIFF, appellant.
From Arson. New trial.
1t is not error to admit the introduce
ton of the registry of deeds in evidence
showing a deed, and in rot requiring the
introduction of the original deed. Code
section 1851. Here there was no rule
of court that the original deed should
be produced, and no suggestion that the
registration was incorrect.
An objection that an instrument can
rot be offered in evidence on the ground
that there is no revenue stamp upon it,
cannot be sustained, Ga n. c., 739; 65 N.
c., 104.
Where the parties and the subscribing
witnesses TO an instrument are all dead,
the evidence of the probating witness
that he was we'll acquainted with the
handwriting of the subscribing witness,