The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-01-10
der an action against the sheriff by such


Amt in sucb case the sheriff af
10 dIqlq1 the property after receiving
onds from the plaintiff in the
execution, IL is held in an action by sheriff
on the indemnity bond, that the property
after seizure by the coroner was not in
the custody of the law SO as to divest
the sheriff's authority to sell under the
execution.
WILLARD MFG. co. v. TIRNEY ct al
appellants. From Durham. New
trial.
The evidence in this case showed that
the interpleader bank advanced to defen-
dant Tirney $697.99 to pay for cotton,
satisfying a party's draft with bill Of la
ding attached for that amount. and as
a part of the transaction the same bill
of lading accompanying this draft was
attached to a draft for $S36.26 drawn by
the defendants to their own order and
endorsed to the interpleader bank. The
defendants owed the bank S697.99 money
advanced to pay for the cotton, and the
proceeds of the draft in controversy were
credited to them in discharge of it, leav-
ing a balance to their credit which was
afterwards drawn out. Held that the
bank was the owner of the draft and the
cotton upon account of which it was
drawn. to the amount advanced therefor.
Where a vender of goods ships them,
taking from the carrier bill of ladlng
to deliver to his order, and thereupon
draws draft payable to his own order
upon the vendee, attaching the bill OF
lading and endorses to a third party such
draft for value. it was held that the title
to the goods vests in the endorsee to the
oP hha
STATE V. PARKER, appellant From
Durham. New trial.
This was an Indictment for rape, and
the exception is based upon the failure
of the judge to properly instruct the
jury in respect to certain evidence Of
fered and received as corroborative in its
nature.
After the case was settled the judge
was applied to for an amendment to the
statement so that it might appear that he
did not explain to the jury that the testi-
mony of certain witnesses was to be con-
sidered as corroborative only. The judge
stated he could not say with certainty
whether he did or not. but was willing
for the solicitor to make the amendment,
provided it be made substantially as fol-
lows: upon objection being made to the
statement-the court said in presence
OF the jury that the evidence of the wit
nesses would be admitted only as corrob-
orative of the prosecutrix. and in the
charge the court recited the evidence of
! the prosecutrix and said the State con-
tended that the jury onght to believe
Der and that she is corroborated?" Held
that the jury were not properly instructed
upon the matter Of corroborative evi-
dence.
When corroborative evidence is intro
duced, it is the duty of the trial Judge
to see to it. even without special re-
guest, that the jury are fully instructed
as to the use they are to make of it. and
a failure to do so entities the prisoner
to a new trial.
Where a witness is impeached he may
be supported by proof of consistent state
nents made at other times. but it must
not be considered as substantive evidence.
| The fact that supporting a witness who
testifies does indirectly support the facts
to which he has testified, is merely Incl
dental.
FEATHERSTON, appellant V. CARR.
! From Buncombe. Error
| Where it clearly appears that all mat
ters in dispute in an action to recover
possession of premises for non-payment
! of rent may be settled in one action then
pending, and that the plaintiff will not be
injured thereby, it is proper to enjoin
a multiplicity of suits.
But where an injunction has been is
sued for such purpose restraining the
plaintiff from bringing other suits, for re-
covery of possession for non-payment of
rent, until the determination of the action
then pending. it was held error to enioin
the plaintiff from prosecuting a new ac-
tion for recovery Of the premises upon
the ground that the lease had expired.
MORROW appellant. " A. C c. RAIL
ROAD co. From CASTOR No error.
Action for damages for injuries caused
by alleged negligence OF defendant. The
plaintiff and his wife and one Carson and
two other persons went to the station OF
the defendant company with the plaintihfs
sister and her six children (from 16 down
to years of age) to assist them in board
ing the train at night for distant point.
After the train arrived and the paSsen-
gers alighted, the plaintiff and Carson as
sisted the said sister and children to get
on, but before they could find a seat the
train started and Carson ran to the
door and jumped off without injury. But
when the plaintiff, following him. ''let his
feet down from the steps, of the plat
form, there was a sudden Jerk which
broke his hold, his feet struck pile of
mail sacks which had been left near the
crossing and about $50 feet from the
usual place where passengers ahghted,
and the plaintiff was thrown under the car
and injured.
AS the plaintiff and Carson boarded
the train with said sister and children.
an employee of the company. in uniform
and with lighted lantern. was standing
near and could see them as they got on
the train. None of the employees helped
the parties to get aboard. 1t was Gus
tomary to give signals before starting the
train, but neither the plaintiff nor Carson
heard signals of any kind that night.
though they might have been given with
out being heard by them.
The train was composed of eight or
nine cars. The plaintiff did not see the
conductor, or he would have informed him
that he intended to board the train to