The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-03
Supreme Court Digests.
(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell.)

STATE V. G. w. DANIELS, appellant
FROM Dublin. New trial.
Whether an act causing death is the re,
suit of premeditation aud Geiiberation is
fact for the jury. and not conclusion
CO law for the court.
Whose. on trial az an Indictment for
murder, the only witness to the homicide
(exceat the prisonerl testified that he
first saw the prisoner and deceased
standing In the path fronting each other,
and heard prisoner ask deceased why he
went to his house last night and heard
deceased reply that he did not 20 and the
prisoner said: SYou are a liar voa did;
am going to kin you: throw UP your right
hand aud that prisoner then shot the
deceased. that deceased had turpentlne
Upper Ca piece OF fiat iron II inches long,
ona inch thick and handle feet long, IN
HIS hand. and was shot about three teet
from the prisoner. And prisoner testified
that the deceased rose before him while
prisoner was passing through the woods
in the day time and after inauiring for
whom he was looking, started towards
the prisoner with the iron dipper in his
hand saying that the prisoner had been
taking about him; that prisocer said:
eff you do not quit coming On me / will
shoot you. and deceased replied. Shoot,
shoot, and prisoner shot aim when
about IS steps off after deceased had
stopped; that prisoner and deceased Were
frit udlv and had had no difficulty. and
he shot deceased because he was scared of
him. The court stated to the Jury that
only two persons had testified as eye
witnesses; one is the prisoner and the
other is Stroud, aud after reading the
evidence of Stroud. charged the jury: III
YOU find those facts to be true beyond
reasonable doubt the prisoner IS guilty OF
murder i'll the first DECREE. because they
show generalization and elaboration by
the prisoner" Held, error
HUGHES EFT AL, appellants V. CLARK
EFT AL From Pitt. Affirmed.
Where lots of land ara conveyed by
| reference 10 a map or plat, which repre-
| SCENTS q division Of the land into streets
and lots. the streets represented by such
map become dedicated to the pubic use
| and the purchaser of lot o. the land
! represented bv such map. acquires the
right to have ell of the streeJs represent
ed on the map, kept open; and /: Is I'M
material whether the streets &c in 1act
ouened or accepted bv the town Or city
| in which the land lies. And where the
property was outside of the corporate
limits of the town when the map was pre-
cared and the lots sold, but, was arter-
wards included IN the corporate limits Or
the town, no action bv the town COM
najssioners can affect the dedication
whlch the Granto= is held to have mace
"a public use by the map representing
SAIL streets.
C0WAN, appellant, V. W. = Roberts.
From EuncOmbs. New trIaI.
The distinction between a guaranty Oh
payment ana guaranty of collection OF
a debt is that in the guaranty or pay
menu the PROMISE to pay at maturity,
provided the principal debtor does not
pay, Ia absolute; while Il the guaranty
Of collection, the promise to pay ia con-
1it!oned upon the guarantees Gilisent
eifar. 20 make collection. hU: without
SiccesS
III absolute guaranty OF payment, no
notice or acceptance by the guarantee IS
.eouired. but such notice is required IN
the guaranty OF collection.
Where the words OF guaranty were az
co hereby guaranty This Oh.
legation TO remain in full force, ctc.. /.
was held that the guaranty is absolute
.nd no notice Is required.
| The Dronise of the guarantee to furnish
eCodT IS a sufficient consideration IL sup
mort the contract or guaranty.
Where one OF two persons must suffer
loss oy the fraud Or misconduct o; a third
| rerson. the loss should fail upon him VINO
| first reposed the confidence. or who by
his negligence made the loss possible.
Therefore. where enc signed guaranty
upon condition that It should not be de-
| iivered until another had also signed, and
me guaranty was delivered i'll violation Of
the conditions. end the guarantee had no
knowledge OF the condition, the signe- o:
the guaranty ia bound.
BRYAN VS.. SO. RAILWAY co, appe.-
liant. From Catawba. New trial
Exception to the charge ri q trial
Judge. where the record shows that there
is no evidence TO support it. will be sus-
aimed. and a new trial granted.
| PORTER. appellant. v. 1RMSTR 0NG.
From Ponder. Error.
n !. proceeding under Chapter 80 CT
The Code to drain land. no appeal LES
until after the report of the commission
ers APPOINTED under aactIon 1912 When
the report is made, exceptions thereto
| may be filed and heard by the clerk and
an appeal taken froE, his Judgment.
| Where the answer to the petition
raises issuce Of fact, the decision of
which is essential to tt" further prosecu-
ton Of the petition, the clerk may stay
proceedings until such issues are decided
Ill accordance with the practice in other
special proceedings IF questions of law
are presented and decided by the clerk
before the appointment cs commissioners
al appeal ma" be taken to the Judge,
md the clerk wil proceed as directed
In the judges decision; Int this practice
should be confined to offences which lie
at the theshold OF tSA cSuge and to pleas
III bar.
Where the answer to . petition to drain
and denied that the land was Swamp
on low land or subject tn inundation and
could not be coaveniartly drained ex
cept over defendants lend, and averred
that the petitione~ had diverted the wa
ter from his lasd and violated certain
H., Jafo