The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-05

will Drobated in 1855. and evidence identi-
| flying the land and showing possession OF
| their ancestor and of his devisees up to ten
and fifteen years before the action, 1t was
error to non-suit the plaintiffs. The legal
| title OF the ancestor vested in the heirs
until Invested by partition and drew the
possession to them, and in the absence OF
possession by stranger for sufficient time
10 bar recovery, entitled them to recover.
MILLER VS.. COKE, appellant. From
| Rutherford Error
A second mortgage cannot bring 4 prior
MORTGAGE into court for the purpose OF
| having the first mortgage Cancelled upon
the ground that an action upon the first
mortgage would be barred if the Statute
of Limitations was pleaded in the answer.
The execution of power of sale under
mortgage is not within the meaning OF
the word action" nor within the provls-
ions of Section 1852 81 of The Code. Men
2ell vs. Hinton, 1872 N. c. $780,
| bar of the note secured by the mort
gage does not bar the mortgage within ten
years.
EWBANK, appellant VS.. TURNER ct al.
| From Henderson. Action dismissed
1t is within the power of the Legislature
| competency of persons who wish to prac-
tce professions or skilled trades Estate VS..
Call, 121 N. C. 71O and to provide for a
Board of Examiners for such purpose.
The Legislature having. by Section 3149
of The Code, entrusted the examination of
applicants for license to practice dentistry
to Board of Examiners, to be chosen
from the North Carolina Dental Society
tho oourte oopnnt Intervene and diraot he
board to issue a certificate to one who the
majority of the board have held did not
pass a satisfactory examination; nor will
the courts, in the absence of misconduct
by the board in unjustly refusing to exam
inc an applicant, exercise any supervisory
control over the action of the board.
Where the summons in case OF
which the Superior court has jurisdiction.
is brought before the judge at chambers
the cause is equally in the Superior court
and there can be no defect of iurisdic
ton.
CITY OF ASHEvILLE V. WEBB. Re-
versed.
Section "A OF Chapter 6. Private Laws
of 1908, Ito authorize the city of Ashe
vile to issue bonds to refund its debit
provided for an election to be held when
-
not less than thirty days after date Of
said order, and if a majority of The voters
should not vote in favor of issuing the
bonds, then the aldermen, as soon there
after as deemed best, to order another
election after thirty days public notice
thereof;
| Held that the first election did not re
| Quire thirty days notice, and failure 10
give the same did not invalidate tie
bonds authorized by the election.
| If there was a failure however to pur
| fish at the court house door the names OF
| the registrars chosen for such election,
as required by Section IA. of Chapter
| 507 Acts of 1899, and this was known &c
| the purchasers of the bonds the bonds
will become invalid in their hands.
TOWN OF WILSON V. MARKLEY, ap-
| pellant. Affirmed.
Publication of the Acts of Assembly Is
evidence of the terms of an Act. and tue
| legislative journals are competent as evi-
dence only for the purpose OF ascertain.
| ing whether an Act has been passed ID
accordance with the requirements of Ar
| ticle 2, Section IA of the Constitution,
nd cannot be admitted to contradict zoe
certificates of the presiding officers CT
the Senate and House, or TO disprove tine
passage of any Act not within said con-
stitutional provisions.
| The journals, when competent as EVIL
dence, must be received as they are
written and filed with the Secretary OF
State, and testimony of the chief clerk OF
| the Senate or House is lnadmlssible to
alter or explain the journals.
| Where an Act numbered IS. B. 1063-H.
Z. 1716" authorizing the town of Wilson
to issue bonds was regularly passed, but
| the chief clerk of the Senate, in pre-
pairing a copy for the public printer and
one for the Secretary of State, numbered
| the copy for the Secretary of State IS
b. 1O16-H. B. 171G, A Bill to authorize
1 the town of Weldon to issue bonds" etc..
and the copy for the public printer was
correctly prepared and the Act was cor
reetly printed, it was held that the bonds
authorized by the Act were not lnvali-
dated.
GRIFFIN V. A. c. l.. RAILROAD, appel
liant. From Halifax. New trial.
/ Issues the answers to which will make
| il doubtful as to what the jury have
I found with respect to the liability of the
parties, should not be submitted Pearce
" Fisher, at this term.
| The original complaint in an acton
against railroad CO4npdHy IOT uaHdSes.
alleged that as the plaintiff was pro-
ceeding to alight from the train when it
arrived at his destination. the engineer
! caused the train to give a sudden jerk
which caused the plaintiff to be thrown
violently to the ground and injured; the
amended complaint alleged as The train
, approached the plaintiffs station he was
! told by the porter to alight, that tie
! train slowed down and was moving slowly
having nearly stopped, and the plaintiff
! believing it had stopped, and acting upon
the porter's advice, stepped off and was
/, injured because the train was moving
more rapidly than he supposed;
Held that the issues WAS the plaintiff
injured by the negligence Of the defenf-
ant as alleged in the complaint" and
Ibid the plaintiff contribute to his in
jury?" were insufficient to settle the con-
troversy between the parties.