The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-05-17

a good cause OF action is deemed to have
| been waived by failure 10 demur thereto
OIL take advantage thereof in some proper
way.
In the absence of statutory provision
therefor, an action against county for
| trospass or Tor any oUher tort cannot be
| maintained.
Where the complaint in an action
against County Commissioners alleged that
| the defendant entered upon and took pos
session of the plaintiffs land, and dug up
the land and took earth therefrom.
/ causing deep, dangerous and unsightiy
| holes and constructed an cmbankment
/ across the land for purposes of a high
1 way, thereby rendering the land useless.
| tor practical purposes, demanded damages,
etc. Held demurrable upon the ground
that the complaint alleged trepass, for
which no statutory right Of action ex-
| lists against the defendant
SNYDER, appellant, Tvs. NEWELL. From
! Mecklenburg. New trial.
Inc law presumes a fathers loss of SER
vice by the seduction of his daughter who
| is a member of his household, and in
such case it is error to sustain a de-
murrer upon the ground that the evi-
dence did not prove loss of service.
L0CKHART vs.. CONVICTION. From
Union. No error.
Where a devise of land to the widow in
trust for herself and children, with power
of advancement to each child provided
for final division among the children in
severalty upon the death or marriage
of the widow, and that in the event any
child should die before the widow, leaving
IL 80 49,
should revert to the living children or
their heirs, it is held that a child who
died after the widow, without issue held
in fee the share allotted to him by
the widow before her death.
LEWIS VS.. n. & w. RAILWAY CO., APP
Pellant. From Person. Affirmed,
The plaintiff in an action for damages
for personal injuries sustained was prop
ery allowed to introduce a portion of an
allegation of the defendants answer for
the purpose of showing that it was the
defendants road upon which the plaintiff
was injured, where the portion introduced
admitted that the plaintiff was found in
an injured condition on the defendants
track and the portion excluded by the
plaintiff constituted merely a denial of
the corresponding allegation in the com
plant, which was to the effect that the
plaintiff was wrongfully knocked from the
train by the defendants brakeman. Goss-
Ter VS.. Wood, 100, N. G. SO.
AS the admission of evidence is in CT
feet ruling by the court that it tends
to prove some material fact, it is not i'm
proper for the trial judge in charging the
jury to use. the expressions the evidence
tends to show and evidence tending TO
show" Savage vs., Davis 131 N. G. 159,
distinguished.
Where, in an action for damages, there
was evidence tending to show that the
plaintiff, while stealing ride on the de-
PENDANTS train, was ordered by she brake
man to get off and the plaintiff replied
that he would get off ii the train was
stopped and that he was Immediately
knocked from the car by the brakeman
and injured, it was not error to charge
the jury that in dealing with trespasser
the defendant was not held to the highest
degree of care, but was required to use
ordinary care and not to Intentionally or
wilfully injure such trespasser. Pearce vs..
Railroad, 124 N c. So; Cook vs.. Railroad
rs n. G.. 80.
A definition of ordinary care that 1T is
not intentional or wilful injury was not
prejudicial to the defendant even if mac
curate where the unmistalable meaning
was to charge the jury in connection with
such definition that they could not find
that the plaintiff was injured by the
wrongful act of the defendant unless the
defendants employee Intentionally and
wilfully injured him.