The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-10-11

The statement of case on appeal in
criminal case must be submitted for ac-
ceptance to the States solicitor for the
district where the case was tried and COM
pliancc with this requirement is not met
by acceptance of the case by an attor-
new who appeared with the solicitor III
the trial of the case.
STATE, appellant VS.. LEW. From New
Hanover. Reversed.
Chapter 533 Laws 1903 having repealed
Chapters % and 20 Laws 1901 which pro-
vided that six of the ten terms of court
provided by the Act 1901 for New Han
over county should be for the trial of
civil cases only, and the Act OF 1903 hav-
ing omitted the provisions of any terms
for the exclusive trial of criminal cases,
it was error to allow the motion to quash
for that the term at which the lndict-
ment was found was for civil cases only.
IN RE BURGwYN. from Northampton.
Affirmed.
The Acts of Assembly relating to grant
ing license to sell liquor reviewed; and the
court hold that under the Act of 1901 Oh.
8, Sec. &c the Jurisdiction and power to
grant license in Northampton county were
taken from the judges of the Superior
Courts and given to the County Com
missioners. The ruling of the judge be-
low in declining to hear and pass upon
the defendants application for license to
sell liquor is affirmed.
sALLINGER We. PERRY, appellant.
From BERTHE. Affirmed.
Upon the issue whether certain notes
made payable to the husband were for
the purchase price of the wife's land and
were made payable to the husband
through mistake, it was proper to instruct
the jury that the burden of proof was on
the husband (who as administrator of the
wife sought to recover the notes from
his creditor); and that the husband must
establish the affirmative of the issue by
evidence that is clear, strong and con-
vincing and that there should be an af
firmative finding if the jury were thor
oughly satisfied from the evidence that
the craftsman of the notes made mis-
take in writing the husband as payee in
stead of the wife.
PARKER, appellant VS.. TAYLOR.
From Gates. No error.
Where the answer in special proceed
ing to determine boundary line raises
only an issue as to boundary, the .judg-
ment of the clerk is final as to such issue.
The Provisioning Act och. % Laws
1899 is intended solely to locate the boun-
dairy between adjoining proprietors, and
where the answer in a proceeding under
such Act raises an issue as to title, the
proceeding is thereby constituted an ac-
ton of ejectment and must be transferred
to the court at terms for trial.
The judgment in special proceeding
to determine boundary line between ad-
joining proprietors is an estoppel in an ac-
tion of trespass between the same par
ties.
The judgment of the clerk determining
the location of a boundary line between
adjoining proprietors is authorized by the
statute and is conclusive of such fact
upon parties and privies to the action.
STATE VS.. LEWIS, appellant From
Lenoir New trial.
Indictment for larceny of money At
the request of the prosecutor the defend
ant put his hand in the prosecutors peck
et got his money and paid for liquor and
put the money back in the prosecutors
pocket-calling the attention of the clerk
at the store to it. The prosecutor swore
that after this he and defendant went to
a warehouse and prosecutor went to sleep;
defendant put his hand in prosecutors
pocket and took money out and prose
cutor said: Don't take my money" de-
PENDANT said nothing but took the money.
On cross-examination the defendant asked
the prosecutor if he had not been in the
habit of losing money when drunk and
accusing other people of stealing it, and
he answered no. Defendant then proposed
to show that on many occasions the pros
ecutor had wrongfulIy accused people of
stealing his money while he was drunk
and was in the habit of doing so. This
was objected to by the State and the
court excluded it; Held error.
STATE vs. HUNCH HULLEN, appel
liant. From New Hanover. No error.
The indictment was in two counts-one
for breaking into house with intent to
steal goods, etc, and the other for break
ing into house and actually stealing a
watch. The evidence showed that among
the articles taken and carried away were
a watch and pocket book; that the de-
PENDANT pulled from his pocket pocket
book and removed the silver edges from
it. saying he did not like fancy pocket
books. The court below on objection
admitted the evidence as to the pocket
book and refused the prayers of defend
ant for instructions, and ruled that there
was some evidence to be submitted to the
jury upon the question of the defendants
guilt-whether credible or not was solely
for them; Held no error. State VS.. Bruce,
LOG N. C. 1872 is very similar to this case.
Held also that the instruction to the
jury that recent possession by defendant
of the stolen goods was only circum-
stance to be weighed by the jury in pass
ing on defendants guilt, was correct
State VS.. Graves, Y N. C. 4S2 and other
cases.
The exception that the sentence Of three
years Imprisonment was excessive under
Act of 1895 CHI. 2S5 cannot be sustained,
as that Act does not apply to cases OF
larceny from dwellings by breaking and
entering. etc.
SIMPSON VS.. ENFIELD LUMBER