The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-24

manding them to issue a license to an
applicant provided he is a proper person
and the place of sale a suitable one.
This has been the law in North caro-
lima since ~the decision in Attorney Gen
eral vs.. Justices, q N. c., 315, except
during the tina between the Act OF 1875,
ch 29i sec. SO, and its amendment by
the Act of 1897, ch. 16S. sec. 81.
Chapter 1888, Acts 1903 C'The Watts
Law') does not deprive county commits
sioners of their discretion In granting
license to sell liquor.
Where, in an action for mandamus TO
compel county commissioners to issue |
license to sell liquor, the commissioners |
averred in their answer that they had |
in good faith exercised their discretion |
and that each application for license was |
fully and fairly investigated and care
fully considered and that applications !
were not arbitrarily refused, but were |
only refused in the just and reasonable |
exercise of their legal discretion, and the !
plaintiff demurred to the answer; Held, |
that as the demurrer admits the truth
of facts pleaded, it will be assumed that |
the averments in the answer are true and |
from this assumption it follows that the |
commissioners have done their full duty |
Plaintiff having elected to demur to the |
answer the court follows the rule laid |
down in Commissioners VS.. Commission
ers, 107 N. c.. and dismisses the action. |
(The cases of Brldgers and HoW2ll against |
Commissioners Of Wilson, at this term, |
involve the same point, and are con- |
trolled by the abovc)
CHAFFIN, appellant VS.. MFG. co. |
From pavie. New trial.
In an action to recover permanent ana |
annual damages to plaintiffs land caused |
by water being pended thereon by rea- |
son of defendants dam, the judge cor |
,I,,.
ure lot damages was the difference in |
value OF the land with the dam stand |
ing and the value without the dam. In !
such case the reference of the court to |
the erection of the dam without using |
the words land maintenance was not !
misleading when the context showed that |
plaintiff was entitled to recover damages |
for both the erection and maintenance |
of the dam.
The defendant in this case not being |
a public or quasi public corporation and |
therefore not having the right of eminen- |
domain, no question is presented as to
the right of acquiring a perpetual ease
ment by payment of permanent damages.
1t is sufficiently responsive to prayers
for instruction if the court gives the
substance of the prayer end the party |
has thereby the full benefit of the prin
Ciple CT law he seeks to have applied to
the facts.
The charge of the court In a civil case
that the jury must be satisfied by pre-
ponderance of the evidence, or that the
plaintiff must prove the case to the salts
faction of the jury, does not require
any greater degree or intensity OF proof
than is necessary III civil cases. is held |
to mean no more than that the jury must
CONF to- conclusion which is satisfac-
tory to them discussion by Walker, j..
of degree of proof IN criminal and civil
cases).
Where, in an action for permanent
and annual damages to plaintiffs land
caused by ponding water thereon it was
sTror to charge that plaintiff would
be entitled to recover nominal damages
if water had been pended on his land
ITO any appreciable extent plaintiff
would be entitled to nominal damages.
as in case of n distinct legal wrong, II
water was ponded on his land to any ex-
tent. as this would constitute the inva-
sion of the right of another, and IN such
case the law presumes that some damage
follows as a natural result, and the
wrong fixes the right of action and plain,
tiff need not go further to show right oil
recovery though the extent OF recovery
may depend upon the evid snce.
1t is the technical injury to the right,
however small damage, that gives the
right of action. Little vs.. Stanback, 63
n. c.. 2S5, approved as to rule OF dam
ages and principle relation to nominal
damages discussed by Walker, J.
CORPORATION c OMMISSION vs.. so.
RAILWAY CO, appellant. From Gull
ford. Affirmed.
A State Court is not bound to surren-
der it's jurisdiction OH a petition Tor re-
moval unless a case has been made, when
on it's face shows that the petitioner has
a right to have the cause transferred.
Where the defendant appealed to the
Superior Court from an order of the
Corporation Commission comp ling the
defendant to deliver on a side track cars
containing freight consigned to the com
plainant and appealed to the Supreme
Court from a refusal to grant the mo-
ion to remove the cause to the Fedora
Court. it was held that the petition for
removal was properly refused, as no
cause involving 81 900 was alleged.
GRAVES VS.. COMMISSIONERS OF
MOORE. Modified and affirmed
Where bonds were issued pursuant to
an act of the General Assembly not
passed in accordance with section II, Ar
ticle II of the Constitution. thew cannot
be sustained under section 1896 of The
Code, where the recitals in the bonds
made no reference to such section. This
court adhere to tho construction placed
by it in former decisions upon section
1896. The word completion used in
the tction cannot be construed con
st1uctiOn'