The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-13

Guano Company vs. Marks, from Stanly >;
new trial.
Gordon VS. Hughes, from Davidson, per
curiam; affirmed
Spence VS.. Railroad, from Stanly. per
curiam: affirmed.
Clegg VS.. Southern Railway Company,
from Iredell, per curiam reversed on au-
thority of Prevatt VS.. Harrelson 49, n. C.
$50, and Evans VS.. Allredge, 1873 n. G.
Els.
Warrington VS.. Jones, from Guilford, per
curtain; affirmed
APPEALS ARGUED.
Hon. Cyrus B. Watson and Attorney
General Gilmer argued yesterday in the
Supreme Court for the city of Winston,
and the State against the trading stamp
company, and Mr.. Glen Manly spoke for
the company. The question was whether
the trading stamp concern should be
classed as gift enterprise company. or
an advertising agency. The city claims
they come under the former head. and
should, therefore, pay license 4v,.-et $50,
according to the city ordinance taking
gift enterprise companies. Mr.. Manly ar
gued that the concern is merely an adver-
Using agency, and so comes under the
city ordinance requiring a license tax OF
only SO.
Mr.. c. o. McMichael, of Madison, argued
for the defendant in State VS.. Goulden,
from Rockingham. Goulden was convict
ed of bigamy in the court below, having
married some twenty odd years ago, and
having driven off his wife three months
after the marriage, He recently married
again, and offered III defense that he had
heard his first wife was dead. He mar
red the first time in Virginia, close to
the State line, then moved into North
Carolina and lived close to the line first
in enc State and then in another, his first
wife living in Virginia, some twenty miles
from the line The evidence adduced by
the State on the trial below tended to
show that Goulden knew his wife was not
dead.
Mr.. McMichael contended that Goulden
and his wife being separated for the seven
years prior to the second marriage con
stituted a case of absence rs provided
for in the code.
Appeals argued yesterday were as fol-
lows:
Leggett VS.. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad.
F. Warren for plaintiff; Small & Mclean
for defendant.
Cases from the Eleventh district were
argued yesterday as follows:
State VS. Johnson, from Wilkes dis
missed on motion of Attorney General
for failure to print the record.
State VS.. Gculden, from Rockingham,
argued by Attorney General for State;
~ Of
State and city of Winston VS.. Hudson,
argued by Attorney General and Watson,
Buxton & Watson for State; Glenn, Manly
& Hendren and W. B. Crisp for defendant.
/. State and City of Winston VS.. Beeson,
argued by Attorney General and Watson
for plaintiff; Glenn, Manly & Hendren and
Crisp for defendant
Self VS. Shugart, by Watson and Reece
for plaintiff; Carter & Lewellyn and
Manly for defendant
johnson VS.. United Order of Reformers,
by l.. NJ. Swink and J. S. Fits for plain
tiff; J. S. Lanier for defendant.
Loan and Investment Company VS..
Lash by Watson and L. n. Swink for
plaintiff; j. S. Grogan for defendant.
Williamson VS.. Manufacturing Company,
by Lindsay Patterson for plaintiff; Wat
son and Manly for defendant.
Appeals from the Twelfth district will
be called next Tuesday in the following
order:
Fisher VS.. Brown.
Boyd VS.. Railway.
Walker VS.. Railway.
Cogdell vs. Telegraph Company.
Conner VS. Manufacturing Company.
Hood VS.. Telegraph Company.
Doil
Ratliffe VS. Railroad Company.
Orr VS.. Railway Company.
Holder VS.. Manufacturing Company.
Fore VS.. Planning Company.
McGraw VS.. Railway.