The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-10-23

the courthouse in Waynesville ION
| the four main roads of said township"
| does not repeal Private Laws of 1885.
| Chapter 127, Section Is which en-
powers the aldermen of Waynesville
to lay off, widen and straighten the
streets of the town.
The charter of a town expressly
vesting in it the regulation and con-
| troll of its streets. is not implicitly re-
pealed by a subsequent act creating
| board of road commissioners to
| improve the public roads of the town.
ship in which the municipality is sit
| uated, and providing that said COM
on the four main roads" at a point
within the town. In such case the
act will be construed to empower the
road commissioners to begin work on
| the roads named at a point where
such roads reach the boundary of the
| town.
State VS.. HanEins. appellant. From
| New Hanover No error.
| 1t is not always sufficient to sup
port a plea OF former acquittal that
the two prosecutions grew out of the
same transaction, but they must be for.
the same offence-the same both in
law ana in fact
| Neither is it sufficient that evidence
of the facts alleged in the first indic,-
ment would also be competent as to
| IactS alleged i'll the second indictment.
Wnen there is not complete identity or
the two accusations. there must be
aVerment in the plea of such, facts
as will show identity, and on trial OF
| the issue joined on the plea there
must be proof thereof.
| The defendant II and one B were
] first indicted for stealing certain ar
I tlcleS of clothing from a store. The
i State failed to show that II took any
of the articles named in the indict-
ment, and to show conspiracy be-
tween II and b to steal the articles
named. the State proposed to prove
that II took a coat at the same time.
The court admitted the testimony but
| thereafter charged the jury that there
was no evidence of conspiracy and d.
| rected verdict of not guilty as &c
II which was entered. Thereupon the
defendant H was indicted for steal
! ing the coat and pleaded former ac-
| quittal; Held that the plea is not
available.
| Bowen. appellant. VS.. Hackney. From
| Wilson. Affirmed
Where a devise for life to the tes-
/ tator's wife was followed by devise
and requests of other property to the
! testator's children which according to
| his expressed opinion made an equal
division of his estate among them ana
| the will then provided that at the ex-
| piration of the wife's life estate that
which" testator had given to her
| should be equally divided between all
his children, share and share alike.
the representatives of such as may
| have died, to stand in the place OF
! their ancestor" it is held
| ID That as to the property sub
| ject to the life estate each child or
| the testator acquired an estate contin-
gent upon his surviving the life ten
ant, and the estate of a "represen-
| tative" of a deceased child was by
purchase and not by descent. Ander-
son VS.. FELTON,, So n. c. So. distin-
guished according TO rule in Rives VS..
Frizell, 43 n. C. 237.
60 The word Representatives" as
used by the testator is not construed
to include the devisee of a daugh-
| ter who died without issue during the
continuance of the life estate.
State VS.. Adams. appellant. From
! Wake. New trial.
On trial of an indictment for muir
der if motive for the homicide is at
tempted to be proved. it must be done
strictly by legal evidence, and all ref
| erences thereto by the trial judge in