The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-12
Supreme Court Digest.

(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell')
PERRY VS. FARMERS MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, appellant
From Union. Affirmed.
An insurance company, by accepting
and retaining an overdue assessment
after the burning of the property insured,
and with full notice thereof, is held to
have waived forfeiture in payment of
the assessment fand to have continued
the policy in force.
HUNTLEY VS.. HASTY, appellant. From
Union. No error.
Where, in an action for assault and
battery with a deadly weapon, the cause
of arrest set forth in the complaint is
essential to the plaintiffs action and the
complaint has been properly verified an
affidavit for an order of arrest is nos
necessary, and an order of arrest is not
required before issuance Of an execution
against the person of the defendant.
PEBBLES VS.. Foote. SO N. c. 102.
In such case, the judge residing in the
district has jurisdiction of an appeal
from the refusal of the clerk to issue
executions against the person of the de-
PENDANT
STATE VS.. WICK appellant. From
Wayne No error.
The rulings of law by Superior Court
judges. or challenges to jurors for cause
are renewable on appeal. but the judges
findings of fact are conclusive. In chal-
lenges to the favor the judges findings
of fact and of law are conclusive.
One who has conscientious scruples
against capital punishment is disqualified
to serve as juror upon the trial of an
indictment for a capital felony; and
Nkh INV -,
the prisoner, stated that he had con-
scientious scruples against capital pun
ishmcnt, the trial Judge properly decided
as matter of law that the juror was in
competent. State VS. Jones. so n. C. AS
State VS.. Green, 95 N. C. Gil.
DAVIS VS.. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAIL
WAY. From Union Affirmed.
Plaintiff claims damages for personal
injuries sustained while alighting from
defendants train after helping his wife
and children, who were passengers. pro
cure a seat and alleges that he requested
the conductor 10 hold the train till he
could get off, and that he found a seat
and left the car as quickly as he could.
and was jerl1ed from the bottom step of
the platform by a sudden motion of tho
train. Held no error in refusing defend
ants motion to non-suit. Whitley's case
122 N. c. 9S7.
STATE VS.. MAY, appellant. From Gull
ford Judgment arrested.
Where ii appears from the record on
appeal and judges charge that the de-
PENDANT was tried on but one count in
an indictment, II will be presumed that
the verdict followed tho trial and that
the other count was abandoned
One count IA an indictment cannot be
aided by reference to another count but
each must be complete in itself and
contain all the material allegations
which constitute the offense charged
An indictment under section go Of
The Code for abandonment must charge
that the defendant failed to provide ade-
quate support for his wife and children,
and such Indictment is defective where
it charges in the first count abandonment
only. and in the second failure to sur
mort: and where in such case, the record
shows that the defendant was tried only
on the first count the judgment will DE
arrested.
PREVATT V. HARRISON, appellant
From Columbus New trial
Exception TO a refusal to non suit I'M
der the Act OF 1897 is waived by de-
fendant's introducing evidence thereaf-
ter Laws 1901. ch. 54g.
Where a motion to non-suit or de-
murrer to the evidence has been err
roncously refused, a new trial will be
ordered
The plaintiff is not deprived by dis