The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-17

having no relation to or connection
with each. but there are we'll defined
exceptions to this rule. Proof of an
other offence is competent to show
identity intent, or scienter and for
other purposes.
1.-THE court holds that there was no
error on the part of the trial judge in
refusing to give the first prayer for
instruction. There is no particular
formula by which the court must
charge the jury upon the intensity Cf
proof. The second and third prayers
were properly refused"
1--WE are not aware" says the court.
"of any principle of law which requires
that footprints should be identified in
the matter described. There was no
error in refusing to give the inStruc-
tions contained in the fifth and last
prayer. If the instruction thus asked
to be given to the jury was proper
in form and correct in all its parts, we
yet do not think it is necessary where
the State relies on a motive such as
robbery that it should be required 10
prove that the defendant at the time
of the killing knew the fact from
which the alleged may be inferred.
that is. as in this case. that there was
money in Bridgers' house. There is
evidence in this record taht he had
knowledge of that fact. though there
was no such evidence at the first trial.
In concluding the opinion the court
says: ut is proper to refer to the rare
skill and ability with which the de-
fence in this case has been conducted
by the learned counsel as signed by
the court. The record shows an I'M
usually strong presentation of the de-
PENDANTS case in the court below bV
his counsel, who served him with un
firing zeal and singular devotion
throughout the case. and without any
reward for their services. except that
which will come to them from the
consciousness e duty we'll performed.
In this court at both hearings we
have had the benefit of able and ex-
haustive arguments in the defendants
behalf. We are constrained though.
after a most attentive consideration of
the record. the arguments and the
briefs of counsel to declare that no
error has been committed by the court
at the last trial"
Other Opinions.
Other opinions handed down yester-
day are as follows:
State VS.. Dunn, new trial. st.
James Parish Parish VS.. Bagley no
error State VS.. Adams, from Wake.
no error. Marks>Vs. Cotton Mills. new
trial. Covington VS.. Furniture Co. no
error. Jones VS.. Water Co.. from Dur
ham, no error. PRESLEY vs. Yarn
Mills, affirmed State VS.. Garland, no
error. Rayburn VS.. Casualty Co, new
trial. State VS.. Blevins. new trial. Ed
ney VS.. Railway, er curtain. affirmed.
State VS.. Edmundson. per curiam, no
error. State VS.. Shade. per curtain, no
error. Bridges VS.. Railway Co.. per
curtain. affirmed. Norton VS.. Railway
Co. per curtain. affirmed.
Cases from the Fifteenth District
were argued yesterday as follows:
State VS.. Shines, by Acknowledgement
for State, no counsel for defendant.
State VS.. Peter Smith. by Attorney.
General Tor State no counsel for de-
PENDANT State VS.. Mark Lytle. by AZ
Ter for defendant. State VS.. Cook by
Acknowledgement for State, V. S. Lusk.
w. P. Brown, Chas e. Jones for de-
PENDANT state VS.. Jane Lytle, by At
torney- General for State. Frank Car
ter. q F. Curtis. Luther & Wells for
defendant. Whitaker VS.. Jenkins by
F. w. Thomas for laintiff Tucker &
Murphy for defendant. Wood VS..
Tinsley by Shuford and Shepherd Il
Shepherd for plaintiff. w. w. Zachary
for defendant. In re Merrick & Hew-
lit, by Merrimon, F. w. Thomas and
Thos. Settle for appellant, Cnas. p.
Jones for appellee.
At the Close of the Call.
Immediately at the close of the call
of appeals from the Sixteenth District
the cases put to the end of the docket
will be called in the following order:
ia. Rountree VS.. Loftin. 272, State
VS.. l.. n. Jones. 272 "A State Us.
Meachum. 298, State VS.. Lee. 301.
State VS.. Murray.
Appeals from the Eighteenth Dis
will no paIlad noyf trI1ocdaU NAV
23 as follows:
Ammons vs.\Southern Railway Com
pany, Curtis VS.. Southern Railway
Company. Nicholson VS.. Railway Com
pany, Leach VS.. Telegraph Company.
Wilson VS.. Bryson, Ledford VS.. Emer-
son.