The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-24

on May 18th, lose all hope save that
of executive clemency through yester-
days opinions, affirming the sentence
of the court below
They are Shines and Smith and their
crimes were almost too horrible for Ut
terance. Neither were represented by
counsel, but the record, full and ex-
plicit in each case, showed the enor-
nifty of their offenseS.
The Supreme Court concluded argu-
ment for the term today. The judges
are now in daily conference and
another batch of opinions will be filed
on Thursday and it is expected that
adjournment for the term will be 4h1d
on Saturday, this being a week or so
earlier than the usual date on which
the work of the term is completed.
Follow brief summaries of cases de-
termined yesterday:
State VS.. f.. c. McGinnis, appellant:
Attorney General for the State;
Busbee & Busbee and Argo & Shat
fer for defendant, appellant. Clark,
G. j.
/. Chapter 53S. Laws of 1905, re-
enacting the provisions of chapter
221, Laws of 1889, (the bucket shop
law and providing that no person
shall be excused from testifying is
pardoned for such offense, specifying
what shall be prima facie evidence of
violation of the statute and what
shall be prima facie evidence of
contract forbidden by the Act of 1889
and that the opening of an office shall
be prima facie evidence of guilt is
not void under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States guaranteeing the equal
protection of the laws by reason of an
additional section reading: This act
shall not be construed so as to apply
to any person, firm, corporation or his
or their agent engaged in the bust
ness of manufacturing or wholesale
merchandising in the purchase or sale
of the necessary commodities required
/ in the ordinary course of their bust
ness
-. 2. Such section is not germane, to
the statute Which is for the prohibit
ton of the establishment or opening
an office for the purpose of engaging
in or carrying on the business of
bucket shop" i. e. dealing IN flu
lures, where lit is not intended by
the parties thereto that the articles
agreed to be sold and delivered shall
be actually delivered, or the value
thereof paid, but it is intended and
understood by them" that merely the
difference between the contract price
and the market price of the article
at the time specified shall be paid.
3. The section above quoted has
| nothing in it's words or meaning to
uphold defendants contention that it
permits the hedging" of contracts by
manufacturers or wholesale mer-
chants when no delivery is contemS
plated.
4. The statutes of North Carolina
do not prohibit purchases or sales for
future delivery when made bona-fide;
and although section Z mentions only
manufacturers and wholesale dealers
so as to permit them to make future
contracts for actual delivery, there is
no prohibition for any other class of
persons to make such sales or pur-
chases in the ordinary course of bust
ness, such contracts being nowhere
prohibited by statute.
5. Prescribing when and under
what circumstances and as to what
offences certain acts shall be prima
facie evidence is purely an exercise
of the police power and distinctions
made in that respect cannot be UNI
constitutional.
In concluding the opinion, the court
said:
THE Legislature had unquestioned
power to make q bucket shop bust
ness indictabe. The facts found are
that the defendant was carrying on
the forbidden business. 1t can in no
making such business indictable that
the purchase by others upon margin
shall under certain circumstances
raise a prima facie case that such
purchases were void, and otftr
circumstances shall not constitute
such prima facie evidence statute
may be void in part and valid in part.
If the provision as to prima facie evil
dence, as to certain purchasers upon
pcrin WnlI6
wise invalidate that part of the statute
which forbids carrying on the busl-
ness of running a bucket shop" The
defendant is not indicted for buying
commodities for future delivery upon
margin; nor are manufacturers ana
wholesale merchants, nor any one
else. exempted from the prohibition
of carrying on the bucket shop bust
ness. Upon the special verdict the de-
PENDANT was properly adjudged
guilty..
State VS.. White and White, appel
lants: Attorney General S. II. Glenn
ents, r. c. Linno-- b. b. Miller, for
| the State; Montgomery and Crowel
Overman and Gregory, I. f. kluttz, X.
L. Wright G. B. Watson, for appel
lants. Held. That while there was
error in the refusal of the court be-
low to permit one of the defendants
to testify that he and his brother
started for the home of the deceased
with no intent to kill and in further
ance of no conspiracy but merely to
procure him to marry their neice,
such testimony being substantive evil
dence; and while it was also error on
1 the part of the court to have charged
/ that it was the duty of the jury to
sa-- from all the evidence whether or
not the defendants were guilty of
murder in the first or second degree,
| leavino out of consideration their
possible choice of manslaughter, still
such errors were not reversible since
on all the evidence it was clear that
/ the least offense of which the defend