The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-16
Non suit for plaintiff,

of defendant Non suit for plaintiff
who appealed
Held: That where there was evil
J dence tending TO show that plaintiff
was employed by defendant TO change
| switches in a railroad wards and in
performance of such duty the custom
! was for employees TO ride on the pilots
of engines and change switches
| without causing the train to stop:
that To enable them to perform sucn
duty there was usually a sJep on the
pilot large enough Cor the employee tC
gain a foOthold and a rod or beam on
the pilot by which the brakeman
might hold on; that on the engine on
I! which plaintiff was riding there was
| such step, but no such bar or rod, such
facts. if establisher. would establish a
case of negligent injury and the issue
should have been submitted to the
| iury.-Coley VS.. Railroad. 12S n. c.,
J34, cited and approved.
| =. Mere continuance in the perform
apce Of a dangerous duty, while come
times considered contributory negli-
gence. mere properly falls under the
doctrine of assumption of risk which
| may not be aVailed of as "a defense un-
| der the provisions of Oh. SO, Sec. L,
Private Laws of 1897
| 3. While violation of d rule of the
company intended to prevent injury
| will usually bar recovery. this does
! not obtain where such rule is habit
ually violated to the knowledge of the
| employer or of those who stand to-
wards the employed in the position of
| vice-principals. or where Il rul chas
| been violated so frequently that tn"
employer could by the exercise of or
/ binary care have aScertained its nom
performance.
State VS. Jas. X. :IOrncr, appellant.
from Orange. No error
Indictment for mu, der in The kill
! ing of one Nichols n deputy sheriff
who was endeavoring 10 arrest The
! defendant and who had Il warrant
for such arrest. There was n verdict
| of murder in second degree ami judg-
ment and prisoner appealed,
| Held. /. Where no clement OF self
defense is disclosed ny he testimony,
an instruction that ietandant was
guilty. at the least, OF manSl.hghter
was proper; where one puts himself
/ in resistance and opel : defias the
process of the law. he is not allowed
| to take advantage of his own wrong,
| if his life be thereby endangered, ADD
set up the excuse 81 Self-IafeuSe.
Where one brings on a difficulty and
in the progress of it kills, il is not
| Sc uelcllSO even. InOu5n tllt hiiIitiS &c
necessary to save his own life.
>. The rule as To Misunderstanding Of
confessions made by reason Of threats
1 or inducements or Whcrs The person
under arrest is surrounded by q mum
! Der of purSuerS or in q posiIon !uch
| as to throw doubt upon their free aEd
voluntary character cannot be Sus-
| tanned in a case where it appears from
the evidence that the statemen.s w.re
.<Nf IaIS.
ton and without threats o.: induce
ment and when he was cool ana co..
lected and not laboring U2Gc.' e ="
| or apprehension as to his safety.
3. While it is difficult 70 define the
| line at which expressions Of counsel
become of such charactc. as to o
| appealable, the decision Df such 4ues-
lions is usually in the discretion Of
the judge unless the expressions used
constituted gross improperly; w'el e
the defendant was called IAN outlaw
such expression while irrelevant and
| illogical was not of that abusive on
degrading character calculate to pre-
! judice the minds of tie jury and its
irrelevancy was of a sort to be cor
rected by the charge Of the court.
j. III. Hill VS.. ThOrn:ol Dalton ct al.
From FOrsythe. .Afsirmed.
Proceeding under chapter 4S of
DIS dIll6Iutu ny ClictDlel .
| of 1S93-the "Process'oa Act - Plain
tiff claimed under a grant 10 che
Rights which contained several calls
| to the line of a former gram IL enc
| Mclaughlin. Defendants .ntr 'duCed
the Mckaughan grant. pla, 1tift intro
duced testimony tending 90 snow that
such grant was not properly located,
| and insisted that he vas not called
| on to locate the NJ Vaughan Grant
liza Ii.
der which he claimed, hat he
could locate his l;,u4 according u
courses and distances and regardless
| of the objects called Cor Tne court
charged that as the grant under Which
| plaintiff claimed called tC points with
| in the line of the defendants grant,
| the burden was 1por p(AIauf 70 es-
ia blSh by a prepon 1erluce % the evil
dence the true boundary fine of the
grant under which defendants claim.
Held, /. In such case and III a pro-
cessioning proceeding plaintiff may
| not where there is {. cali FOR course
and distance and "a natural object or
| line of another tract st)D 6 the end
| of the line Cor course ard
distance, but the burden IS
on him either to snow the loca :
| ton of the naturai object 'r HE line
called for or show th3t at The time
| his line WAS surveyor 81 nae NdS VI
and a corner marked corresponding
with the call for course an / distance
or that there was lever any &lcn OBJ
| ject or line as called for.
\ .. Declarations y I. deceased per-
/ son as TO corners II Il line IN contro-
lversy must be strictly Coaiioe1 To the
rule that they ere competent only
when the decldrant Ia opportunity OF
Il knowing, had 10 interest in making
the declaration and that 1T was ante
litCm mOtain.
Jones ct al VS.. BallOu ct al. Appellant
from Ashe. No Error.
/. An action lies in the superior
Court to restore lost deed, the
! record of which is alleged TO have
/ been destroyed, and Il motion to DIS
miss on the ground that the ACTOR
! should have been brought before the
clerk under section Sc of The Code