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


under deed executed to him in 1884
sheriff's deed to his grantor in 1856, and
the only evidence Of adverse possession
was that an agent of plaintiffs grantor
raked and hauled straw from the land
one or two years, and that plaintiffs
father cultivated an acre or two thereof
in 1881, it was held error to instruct
the jury that the deed to plaintiffs
grantor was some evidence of adverse
possession in those under whom plaintiff
claimed, and the defendants motion to
non-suit under the statute should have
been allowed. Hamilton " Icard. ia n.
C. IS; Mclean V. Smith. 106 N. c. 172.
CUTLER, appellant V. CUTLER. From
Beaufort. New trial
Where, upon the trial of an issue de-
visavit vel non, the main contention be-
tween the parties was whether the eff
feet of a mutilated will from which the
testator's signature had been torn OF
eaten by vermin and insects, was a re-
vocation of the will, it was error not to
instruct the jury that from the mutilat-
ell condition of the will the law pre-
sumed a revocation whether the testator
knew of the mutilation or not
Where, in such case witness testified
will and had promised testator that he
would qualify, but that he had not
qualified; that the testator afterwards
informed the witness that he had thrown
his will away and that the bugs had dis
figured it so that it could not be under
stood, and that witness would never be
troubled with settling it, it was error
to exclude the caveatoTs question wig
the witness had not qualified, the cavea-
to- having stated that he intended to
prove by the witness that he did not
qualify because the testator informed
him he had thrown his will away and
that witness would not be bothered with
settling it. Mcqueen V. Mcqueen, 50 n.
c. All. cited and distinguished.
LAMB, petitioner V. ELIZABETH CITY.
Petition dismissed.
Section a of the character of Elizabeth
City (Pr. Laws 1899, CHI. 62), which pro-
yides in reference to the condemnation
of land for streets, that in the event of
disagreement between the Aldermen and
the owner of the land as to its value,
freholders shall be appointed to assess
it's value and report to the Aldermen,
and if the report is accepted by the AL
dermen they SHAH tender the amount of
the valuation to the owner of the land,
''and thereupon the title shall vest in
the Aldermen. land in case the land
owner shall think the amount assessed
is below the actual value of the land.
nothing herein shall be construed to de-
prive him of his right to appeal, or sue
de novo for damages against the corpora
tion for the value of the land taken" is
held not to aBrogate the doctrine of res
judicata so as to provide that judg=
ment for the value of land condemned
by The town can be obtained in a new Ii
tigation. leaving in force a judgment be-
tween the same parties, determining
their rights, and unappealed from
HANCOCK, appellant V. COMMISSION
ERS OF CRAVEN. New trial
A Board of County Commissioners
elected to serve for two years has power
to contract with an attorney at law to
serve the board as county attorney for
two years Roper V. Town of Laurin-
burg, 80 N. c. APT.
Where in an action upon such con-
tract, it appeared from the plaintiffs
evidence that he was dismissed before
the expiration of his term under the
contract that he had been licensed to
practice law but, at the time he was en-
ployed by the commissioners, did not hold
himself out as a practicing attorney,
that when appointed as county attorney
he was postmaster and still held that
position, that the United States Govern
ment had a prior claim to his services
and the answer admitted the plaintiffs
discharge but alleged that he was dis
qualified to perform his part of the con-
tract:
Held that a motion to non-suit the
plaintiff should not have been allowed
and that the issues raised by the plead
ings and the evidence should have been
submitted to the jury
EFIRD, appellant V. w. L: TEL co.
From Union. New trial
The stipulation on the message blanks
of a telegraph company disclaimng la
bility for mistakes and delays in trans
hitting a message unless the sender or
ders it repeated at an extra charge. is
void as against public policy, and the
failure of the sender to order the mes
sage repeated cannot be pleaded by the
company as contributory negligence in
an action against it for mental anguish
sustained by reason of a mistake in
transmitting the message. Brown V. Tel.
Co. Ill N. G. 1877
Where a telegraph company is notified
Of the receivers doubt as to the correct
ness of a message by his request to nave
the message repeated from the relay sta
ton, the message upon its face showing
urgency, it is the company's duty with
out any request from the receiver to have
the message repeated from the office
where it was received for transmission,
and its failure to do this cannot be con-
strued as negligence on the part OF the
receiver of the message.
And where. in such case, the receiver
of the message, which was intended to
inform him of the sickness of his child,
is assured by the company that the mes
sage is correct, after having it repeated
from the relay station, but the message
is in fact incorrect, and the receiver by
reason of a mistake in the wording OF the
message, is not informed of the illness of
his child and is prevented thereby from
returning home until after the child's
death, the company is liable for damages
for mental anguish.
II ~ L