The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-29

| reasonable notice was given the de-
| PENDANT, the plaintiff could not recov-
err; Held, error. E.
The pressure to throw ten streams
and not less than five streams 100
| feet vertical in still air was an extra
| ordinary pressure required, upon four
| minutes notice to show the capacity
| of the water plant of the defendant
/ and as a means of measuring the rent
| al to be paid. But this stipulation
| has no bearing upon the duty of the
| defendant to furnish supply of wa
| ter adequate for the extinguishment
| of fire" as provided in other parts OF
| the contract.
| Davis, appellant, V. Town of Fremont.
| From Wayne. Affirmed.
| The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
town commission ers from issuing
| bonds for the establishment of an
| electric light plant for that the pro-
| position has not been submitted to a
| vote of the people of the town; Held,
| that the ruling below refusing the
| injunction was correct
| 1t was found that the debt proposed
| to be contracted was for a necessary
4 expense, and that the town could pro-
| vide for its payment, both princlpal
| and interest, without exceeding its
| chartered limit of taxation. The case
| is controlled by Fawcett v Mt. Airy,
1874 n G. CAS- $. Rep. 1920.
| Bowers V. W. u. Tel. Co, appellant.
From Durham. Error.
| Where Il telegram "come at once"
| sent by the mother of the plaintiff.
was not promptly delivered. and it
| appeared that she was unWell but not
| sick enough to have a doctor, and the
| plaintiff was put to the Inconvenience
of walking several miles to reach the
| home of his mother,
Held that the delay in transmission
L, H.,
paid for the message, but there is no
ground to authorize a recovery for
mental anguish.
Telegraph companies can effectually
prevent recovery in such actions by
| the prompt discharge of their duties,
| especially when the tenor of the mes
| sage indicates that either pecuniary
| loss or mental anguish will be the
| probable result of d delay in it's trans
mission or delivery.
| SittOn V. Lumber CO., appellant. From
Swain. Reversed
1t is error to tax the losing party
| with the fees of witnesses of the other
| side, when. the witnesses We're neither
examined nor rendered on the trial.
| Carter V. So. Railway Co, appellant.
| From IredeIl. Affirmed.
| Action for damages for alleged neg
| ligence in killing the plaintiffs intes-
| tate. The intestate was found lying
| on the side of the track: blood and
| flesh and human hair We're seen near
| the body between the rails: an arm
! and a foot were cut off, and the in
| testate was intoxicated at the time of
| the accident: the engineer was sit
| ting in the cab looking ahead and OBJ
| served "a bulk Of something rolling
| into the ditch beside the track: Held,
| that while the intestate was guilty of
| contributory negligence, this was
| proper case to be submitted to the
| jury Options case, 12S n. CO, and
| the refusal to non-suit the plaintiff is
| sustained.
| Weeks, appellant V. Quinn. From
| Rutherford. Affirmed.
! Where one died inteState leaving q
| widow and one daughter and the
| daughter died interstate before her
| mother, the daughter became a stock
| from whom the inheritance nneally
| assembled to her mother, and upon the
| mother dying intestate her next of
| kin take as against the heirs of her
| husband.
As Rule Il of descents deems selzin
! in any person in whom seizin is re-
| quired, it is immaterial who was in the
! actual possession of the land during
| the lifetime of the daughter Kin
| caid V. Beatty, 9S N. c., $40; McMich-
| ael V. Moore, sc N. c. All; Early V.
| Early, at this term.
| Beck V. Meroney, appellant. From
| Cherokee Affirmed.
| The defendant in 1898 bought min
| eral interest in land at q sheriff's sale
| for taxes and more than a year there
| after received a deed from the tax
| collector Within six months after the
| sale, the plaintiff paid to the sheriff
| the amount due by the sheriff for
| taxes, cost and interest. The defend
| ant moved to dismiss because the COM
L all
| due on the land had been paid and
| because it was alleged that the deed
/ to the defendant was void and tended
| to cast u cloud upon the plaintiffs ii
| tie. Held that the motion Was' prop
| erly denied.
| The Revenue Act means that tax
| debtor must show by the evidence that
| he had title to the property at the
| time of the sale and that all taxes
| had been paid on it (and the plaintiff
| introduced such evidence here.) Moore |
=. Byrd, 118 n. G. 600.
Where land is sold for taxes, the |
| purchaser, during the time allowed for
| redemption, has statutory lien on
| the land for the taxes interest and |
| cost, but when they are paid within |
| the time allowed for redemption, the !
| lien is discharged.
The plaintiffs agent in this case APP |
preached the defendant for the pur- |
| pose of redeeming the land. and be- |
| ing refused, he then paid the sheriff |
/ Who in estimating the amount due |
made a mistake of fifty cents. and the |
| defendant contends that by reason of !
| this mistake redemption Toes not fCi- |
| low the payment; Held that the con- |
, tention cannot be sustained.
There is no merit in defendants |
| contention that the sheriff received u |
| check for the payment, especially |
when it is shown that he rendered |
| the defendant the money in payment |
| of the amount due by the tax debtor |
This being action to remove a |
cloud from laintif's title, under
the Act Act. of On Gnap'f t5rs g. The s de
statute of hmiod i,,ts, allowed by H. |
Revenue La then in force, is not |
available That limitation refers to
an action for the recovery Of real |
property sold for non-payment OF
taxes.