The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-06

Isuch time as DR.. Schaub shall have entire
charge OF the practice, then DR.. Schauo
shall receive rs per cent OF collections TO-
work done during such time II III /.
Cchaub gets appointment IN hospital he
| then releases the entire practice to Df.
league; if DR.. Schaub does not get APP
pointment is hospital, or the field is not
larger then than now, DR.. Schaub will
locate elsewhere unless a new contract is
made
Held that the contract was indefinite
as to territory and cannot be aided by
extrinsic evidence.
PARISH, appellant V. EAST COAST
CEDAR co. From Dare. Affirmed.
Section 1922 of The Code provides that
Amy person, his heirs or assigns having
at any time obtained a grant from the
State Tor any swamp lands which have
been surveyed or taken possession OF by
the State Board of Education and
shall not have regularly listed the same
tor taxation and paid taxes due thereon
such grantee and mis- heirs or as
signs shall forfeit and lose all right, title
and interest in the said swamp lands
and the same shall ipso facto revert to
the State and be vested in the said Board
unless such person shall have
paid prior to q January 1874 all
arrearages of taxes due on said lands
with interest" etc.
Chapter 243 of the laws of 1889 amended
said section of The Code by providing
that upon failure of such grantee or
grantees to pay :. all arrearageS OF
taxes which were levied and assessed or
which ought to have been levied and
assessed, with lawful interest due there
on, on or before the q day of January,
1890, all right title and interest in said
swamp lands shall become forfeited
and vested in the State Board OF Educa-
ton, and no suit, action, proceeding, order
decree or judicial proceeding shall be ne
cessary to such forfeiture, but it shall
become absolute at the time herein pre-
scribed,' ETC.
Held that the act of 1889 is void as
contrary to section IL of article l of the
Constitution of the State.
due process of law" and 1.-The law of
the land" defined.
STATE V. TYSON, appellant. From Pitt
No error
Exception to the remarks of counsel
during the argument must be taken be-
fore verdict.
Defendant in an indictment for burn
ing barn was a former slave of the
prosecutors father, and, as the prosecu
tors tenant, had continued to live on
the plantation where he was reared and
in sight of the old homestead, and it
was in evidence that defendant received
a pension as a Union soldier. In address,
ing the jury the counsel for defendant
spoke at some length and with consider.
able feeling of his attachment to his old
master and the members of his family
and pictured with eloquence the sacred |
ness of the surroundings, and argued that
the defendant could not and would not
in sight of the old dwelling set fire to
the barn. The solicitor for the State in
reply said that it did not seem that de
PENDANT was strongly attached to his old
master and his family, as it appeared
that when the test came he had a gun
in his hand ready to shoot down his
young master and was then drawing IL
pension for it. The remarks of the So
hcitor were not called to the attention
OF the court and no exception was taken
thereto until after verdict
Held that the exception came too late
and cannot be sustained under the ruling
in State V. Sugg, SO n. G. 527; State V.
Brown, 100 N. C. 519; State v. Powell
106 N G. 635; State V. Lewis, 90 n. c.
$50; Knight V. Houghtalling, 50 N. c. II
and many other cases.
A party to an action will not be per-
mitted to treat with Indifference any
thing said or done during the trial that
may injuriously affect him, thus taking
the chance of a favorable verdict, and
when he has lost, assert for
the first time that he has been prejudiced
by what occurred. He who would save
his rights must be prompt in asserting
them.