The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-01-15


chinery: nor the risks incident TO the
employers failure TO provide safe ap-.
pliances and direct safe methodS Oh
use, unless the danger resulting lhefe-
from ia obviously so great as 10 rem
der it impossible for the employee 10
provide against injury BY eXercisinS
ordinary care.
The courts recognize that persons
operating powerful and dangerous ma
chinery assume certain risks, but il
is the duty of superintendent ahc
others having charge of such opera
tors TO use every reasonable precau-
ton TO protect them from injury.
Francis appellant ". Reeves ct al.
From Haywood. Affirmed.
Where devised land was conveyed
by the devisee to secure loan OF
money more than two years after
letters of administration and the
money was loaned without notice OF
any outstanding debt against the es-
tate of the devisee's testator, the deed
is valid, under 1442 of The Code, as
against creditors of the deVisor.
The relationship of husband and
wife does not raise presumption
of agency, and where it appeared
that an agent who was negotiating a
loan from a married woman agreed
to see that his principals title was
verify the agents examination, which
the husband did before the execution
of the deed securing the Wife's loan,
it was held that there was not SUI
hcient evidence OF an appointment
Of the husband as agent of his wife
and She was not bound by the nus
bands knowledge of membranes on
the land conveyed to secure the loan.
Rollins, Guardian VS.. Ebbs, appellant.
From Haywood New trial.
Where the amount of the penalty
Of q guardian bond was left blank
whenS the bond was signed and was
afterwards inserted without authori-
ty of the makers or their subsequent
ratification, the instrument is void.
Humphrey Us. Finch, 80 y. {. 3O3
distinguished.
There is no more implied authorl-
ty TO insert the penalty in statutory
bond after it has been signed, than
there is TO insert it in an ordinary
bond.
Fire Extinglisher Co. VS. G. & y. ".
Railway Co. appellant. From Neck
lenburg. New trial.
\ railroad company'S negligence in
failing TO ship goods does not render
it liable for the loss of the goods by
fire, unless it was also negligent in
respect to the fire and there is eVl-
dence that its negligent failure 10
ship was the proXimate cause of the
loss.
released" contract of carriage
relieves the carrier of the common law
liability as inSarer, but not against
injury resulting to the freight from
it's own negligence.
While, as n general rule, negll-
gence is question of fact and the
measure of duty is the conduct OF
the prudent man, it is nevertheless
the duty of the judge 70 explain To
the jury the law in the light OF the
testimony.
State VS. Davis ct al appellants. From
Baden. New trial.
Where an expert on handwriting
was testifying as To similarity between
the handwriting of defendant and GER
tain writing in question, and was ask
ed to explain TO the jury the SINH
arity remark of the Judge on
refusing to permit the witness to tes-
tify further. that witness had fuzzy
explained such similarity. for an hour,
Ito the satisfaction of the court, IS
held TO be prejudicial.
ON trial of an indictment for as
sault with q deadly weapon, the court
charged the jury that the state had
shown that a crime was committed
under such circumstances that no eye
witness could be had; that motive
had been shown and that all the de-
PENDANTS were living on the Same
land. which was owned by one OF
them and to whom the others We're
related by blood or marriage; that
the number of persons engaged in the
crime We're more than enough TO in
clude all the Defendants and though
it was impossible to get all the guilty
ones. there was no danger Of getting
too many; Held error. The jury
should have been cautioned to con-
Wet no one of the defendants until
his guilt had been SHOWN beyond a
reasonable doubt.
State VS.. Bell, appellant. From Lenolr.
New trial.
In an indictment under section 1859
OF The Code for removing crop be-
fore payment of the landlords lien
and without his consent the fact
that the defendant was damaged by
the landlords violation OF his con-
tract to an amount more than the
landlords lien, is not an available de-
Tense state VS. Newl, 129 \. c. 692,
overruled.
A decision in o criminal case over
ruling Il former decision will not de-
prive the defendant of his defense
under the overruled case when it is
reasonable To suppose that his counsel
advised him in Difference 10 the de-
cision which is overruled.
Whisenham. appellant VS.. Southern
Railway co. From Burke. Error.
In an action against a railway com
pany for damages for personal inJu-
ries sustained, the plaintiffs evidence
was to the effect that he and other
laborers OF defendant We're carried TO
and from their work on its gravel
train; that on the occasion of PLAIN
titf's injury the train was bringing the
laborers home and was running Dack-
ward, the caboose in front followed
by four fiat cars on which the labor
ers We're riding. the caboose being
locked and there being no seats or
railing on the flat ears; that when the
train slowed up near the place where
ii was customary for the laborers TO
alight, the plaintiff went to the rear
platform of the canoose, it being UNI
safe 10 stand on the fiatcar, and
stood on the top step of the caboose
to alight when the train stopped;
that the engineer. instead of stopping
at the usual place suddenly put on
steam hl response to a signal from
the conductor, which caused a sud