The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-10
Review of Cases Decided
Yesterday.
PONDER B BUCKETSHOPS
Decisions in Cases Argued Affecting
the COnstiutiOnaIitY of the Wood
ard Bill Not Forthcoming as
Expected,--LittIe in Other
Cases.

Supreme Court opinions were hand
ed down yesterday as follows:
Hicks VS.. Mfg. Co., from Guilford,
new trial.
Holder VS.. Mfg. Co. from Cabarrus,
petition to rehear sustained, new trial
awarded.
Summers VS.. Railway, from Neck
lenburg new trial.
Coleman VS.. Railway from Neck
lenburg, error.
Bolick VS.. Railway, from Catawba,
affirmed.
Cameron -Barkley Co. VS.. Power Co.,
no error.
Moore VS.. Industrial Co., from
Caldwell affirmed.
Abernethy VS.. Yount, from Catawba,
error
Pump Co. VS.. Railroad, from Ca
tawba, new trial.
Hickory Co. VS.. Southern Railway
Co. from Catawba, error
Rees VS.. Spoke Co, from Gulltord,
per curiam, affirmed.
Carter VS.. Railroad, from Guilford,
per curiam. affirmed
Hilton VS. Cotton Mills, from Ca
tawba, appeal dismissed by consent.
Bost VS.. Cotton Mills, from CataWbd,
per curiam, affirmed.
Manufacturing Co. VS.. Moore. from
Caldwell affirmed per curtain.
Roberts VS., Roberts. from CaidWel'
per curiam, affirmed.
1t was expected that the decisions
i'm the bucket shop" cases might be
forthcoming, and there were numer-
Gus Inquiries as to them. but the court
still has those cases under advise
ment.
None of the opinions filed deal with
cases of any special interest as TO
news value. The case of Hickory VS..
Southern Railway, involving the right
Of the road to build a depot on terri
tory claimed by the town, was decid-
ed i'm favor of the defendant. AS
fully stated in these columns when
the case was argued last week, the
point az issue was merely whether the
case was to be heard de noVo or not.
In the first case the judge found the
f5cts in favor of the town, but held
with the railroad, and the town took
a non-suit and appealed. The court
sustained the appeal, and the town
then was permitted to take Judgment
by the lower court without introduce
ing evidence, on the idea that the
facts had been found by the court on
the former trial. This the Supreme
Court holds to be error, and the case
goes back for trial on it's merits.
Something of points on which other
cases determine follows:
Holder vs.. Cameron Mfg. Co, from
Cabarrus, petition to rehear sustain
ed and new trial ordered; w. G.
Means and Shepherd q Shepherd for
petitioner; Montgomery & Crowell, M
E. Stickney and Busbee 81 Busbee,
or tto. n q
case for damages against the officers
of one cotton mill for inducing an
other mill to discharge a man from
night work when the evidence show
ed that he had no contract for such
work, and that the officer charged
with the act was also an officer Of the
mill in which plaintiff was employed:
Persuading or inducing man, with
out lawful means, to do something he
has a right to do, though to the pref
udice of a third person, gives that
person no right of action, whatever
the persuader's motives may have
been.
Summers VS.. r., r., from Cabarrus,
new trial; ClarksOn & Duls for plain
tiff, appellant; w. b. Rodman, for
appellee: Hoke. j.. Held, That where
one offered to a railway company for
shipment as freight articles which he
had purchased from third party and
found unsatisfactory and was return
ing to such party on an agreement
that he should receive credit for the
goods so returned. and the goods
were unduly delayed by such railroad:
That penalties for delay in for
warding freight rendered for ship
ment under Chapter 500, Sec. of the
laws of 1903 are not provided solely
on the idea of making a pecuniary
compensation to the party injured, but
usually for the more important pur-
pose of enforcing the performance of
a duty required by public policy or
positive statutory enactment. (2) The
party aggrieved in statutes of this
is one whose legal right is
denied, and the penalty is enforcea-
bic Independent of pecuniary injury.
(3) The period of delay and time al
lowed, as free time, are subject to
the regulation of the corporation com
mission. but that body has no power
to fix the penalty, which is provided
by the statute.
Coleman VS. II. r., from Mecklen-
burg, error; A. b. Justice for plain
tiff, appellant; w. B. Rodman. for an
pellee; Clark c. j.: Plaintiff went to
the Southern station at Concord and
offered to buy a ticket to Harris
burg. He was told by the agent that
the local train was behind the through
train, which did not stop at the sta
Ion' ana that he could not buy a
tcket until after the first train had
passed. The local train arrived first
anu agent resumed that he announced
II on the platform and in the waiting
room. Plaintiff missed his train and