The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-11-01

under grant to the telegraph company
by the railroad company, is not barred
/ where the plaintiff demand is Tor dam
| ages that have accrued within three years,
| HODGES V. LIPSCOMB, appellant
| From Wilson. No error.
In an action under Chapter 80, Laws
J 1898, to sell for reinvestment, ,ands limit
| ed to a tenant for lite, remainder 10 chill
! dren III esse, and upon failure OF issue OIL
| such children, to the heirs at law and
distributes or the devlsor and the heirs
! and distributes OF the life tenant, the
/ court Will not require service of summons
| ON all persons in esse who by any re-
mote contingency, might have an interest
| in the land
! In such case it is sufficient If, after MAX
ing parties defendant all the persons who
would be remalndermen upon the happen
ing OF the contingency when summons was
issued, publication is made to the defend
ants ana all others who IN any contin-
gency may become interested in the land
and guardian ad Item is appointed for
al unknown persons who may become
interested in the land.
+, WATSON, Admir-, V. SEABOARD
| ROAD, appellant. From Wake No
! error.
/ Upon the issue as to the measure of
damages in an action to recover for the
death OF the plaintiffs intestate Ian en-
gineer) caused by the alleged negligence
of the defendant, it was proper to refuse
to instruct the jury that after 7~4~-,-,,ining
the earnings of intestate, the jury should
deduct from such amount his doctors bill
and loss of inn Inv Of io
railway accidents not caused by the neg
hgence of the company.
Such matters are proper for the consid-
Grafton of the jury in estimating the pro-
bable earnings of intestate, but it is not
possible to produce evidence which would
reduce such matters to dollars and cents
Rule in Benton V. r. Co.. 122 n. c. 1907,
affirmed.
Where, in such case, the court has
adopted an issue rendered by plaintiff
What damage is the Plaintiff entitled to
recover?'-it was proper to refuse to
submit in lieu thereof, at the request of
defendant, the issues-"What was the ex-
pectancy of life of the PLAINTIFFS intes-
tate?" and what would have been his
accumulations arising from his net income
tor that period?'
MAN an oINlNN W V. SlElN-
| METZ, appellant. From Duplin. No
| error.
party to an action may introduce in
evidence part of his antagonists plead
ings, and IN such case the opposite party
may introduce so much of the rest of the
pleading as may be necessary to explain
any admissions in the part put in evil
dence.
/ Attachment being simply a levy before
Judgment, it is the duty of the sheriff to
sell the attached property upon execution
issuing on the judgment, and upon YER
dict in favor of plaintiff in attachment it
is not error to include in the Judgment
an order of venditioni exponas.
STATE V. MARSH. From Union Ger
/ tiorari ordered
Indictment for rape. On appeal judg-
ment was arrested for absence of the
words against her will in the indict-
ment as certified to the Supreme Court
1t subsequently appeared from a state
ment of the Superior Court judge that
the words were in fact III the Indictment
as found by the grand jury, and were
| omitted from the transcript through mis-
/ take Of the clerk. The court, on motion
of the Attorney General, and under its
3 O
Article w of the Constitution, directs
certiorari to issue to the clerk Of the SUI
perior Court to certify a true record of
the cause to this court, and restores the
| case upon the docket for hearing
KERR V. HICKS, petitioner. From
| Sampson.
Petition to rehear dismissed and former
ruling adhered to. The plaintiff who ex-
| cepted In apt time to the compulsory re-
/, ference, is not deprived of the verdict and
| judgment in his favor affirmed by this
/ court) by an objection of the defendant,
| taken for the first time here, to the
| technical form of asking issues arising on
the report of the referee instead of on
| the pleadings.
On petition to rehear, the grounds of
alleged error must be certified by two dis.
! interested members of the bar of this
court, whose certificate is a prerequisite
to the ordering of the petition to be
docketed for argument. Rule So.
LASSITER, Admir-, appellant, V r. &
| C. RAILROAD CO. From Wake Error
| It is the duty OF a railroad corporation
| to keep proper lookout on moving trains,
and when such duty is omitted it is neg
ligence which renders the company re-
sponsibe for what might have thereby
been averted; the company is held to a
knowledge of what might have been seen
by such lookout.
freight conductor in the discharge of
his duties was on the ground at a sta
Ion, giving signals to his train crew. A
switch engine was backing two cars on
side track. The engineer could not see
the track in front of the box cars and
no one was stationed on them or else
where, to look out for persons who might
be on the side track. The conductor
steppe,. on the side track about twenty
five steps il front of the backing car and
was run over and killed. There was posi-
tive evidence tending to show that the
deceased was SO absorbed in his duties
that he was entirely oblivlous to his
danger, and that such condition of the
deceased could have been discovered IN
time to have prevented the casualty. ii
lookout had been kept. Upon these facts
the company Is guilty of negligence and