The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-03-29

T..
ule he was necessarily subject in his
movements to Geographic orders, and
he had such to pass the regular
freight No. s at Vass, and notice that
regular passenger train No. Sc was
running forty minues late, but no or
der that he would pass No. at Vass.
AT Vass he passed No. s, and he en-
tered the telegraph office and asked
if there were further orders, but the
agent told him no. and gave him a
clearance card. He accordingly pro-
ceeded towards Southern Pines, the
next telegraph station, and within
two miles of that station he collided
with train No. 6, and with three 9TH
er men. was killed. There were three
stations between Vass and Southern
Pines, a distance of eight miles, but
no telegraph office was maintained at
either of these. though one had been
formerly. Upon this evidence the
lower court intimated that the plain
tiff could not recover whereupon the
plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and
appealed The Supreme Court holds
that the intimation of the court was
erroneous. The case should have
been submitted to the jury who alone
are empowered to find what was the
proximate negligence which caused
the death. This case, arising out of a
collision. is one of those in which the
law raises a presumption of negli-
gence on the part of the carrier. If
there were facts consistent with the
absence of negligence on the part of
the defendant, still there would be a
conflict with the presumption of
negligence on the part of the
of collision, which presumption is
evidence itself. 1t was according to
the evidence the duty of the agent at
Vass to notify the engineer of train
No. 6 of the departure of Stewart s
train from Vass, which he did not do.
The train dispatches at Raleigh, while
giving Stewart orders to pass No. s
at Vass, overlooked making any meet
ing place for Stewards train and No.
s. When the agent at Vass gave
Stewart a clearance card that was no
tice to him that the way was clear, Ito
go ahead" to the next point where
there was Il telegraph office to get
further orders. 1t was the duty of the
operator at Southern Pines to notify
the dispatcher at Raleigh of the de-
parture of No. 6, but the latter had
to ask, and his uneasiness after re-
ceiving notice of the departure of
Stewards train from Vass. and his eff
forts to stop the trains tends to show
that he had failed to notify Stewards
train or No. 6 that they must pass.
If there were only telegraph Offices
fifty or twenty miles apart, it would
be negligence as a matter of law TO
risk the lives of employees and passen-
gers without such necessary adjunCtS
in operating trains. For guarantee of
safety and convenience, the sole re-
sort is to the courts and jurieS of the
land. The plaintiff had a constitu-
,irrI,t ton rNf
negligence, upon this evidence, sub
mitted to jury and in denying her
that right there was error. Judge
Brown took no part in this decision.
Madison County Case
The following is from tho opinion
of the Supreme court in the case of
w. w. Jones against the Commission
ers of Madison county:
In 1887 Madison county having be-
come indebted to various persons for
necessary expenses, the Legislature
passed an act to enable that county to
settle it's Indebtedness by issuing coupon
bonds payable 20 years from date,
bearing interest at 6 per cent This
Indebtedness was taken up to the
amount of $4,000. No payment of
any consequence has been made on
the Indebtedness. In addition to these
bonds and the interest thereon, unpaid
claims for necessary expenses have
further accumulated against the coun-
ty to the amount of $4,000. To en-
able the county to pay off these debts,
or take up the same, the Legislature
passed an act empowering the com
missioners to issue bonds to the
amount of $4,000 payable thirty
years after date, and bearing interest
at per cent. This act was passed in
1903, and on April goth, 1903, the
county commissioners made an order
to put the act into effect. On May,
1903, the commissioners being advised
that the act was discretionary, and not
mandatory, revoked SO much of the
order as directed the bonds to issue.
The auditing board. as provided by
the act, and order of the commission
ers, met and audited and allowed the
claims due by the county for neces-
sary expenses, including the debt sued
for.
The plaintiff holding the claim,
being bonds and coupons issued un-
der the first act to the amount $21,-
600, demanded of the commissioners
that they comply with the terms of
the last act and exchange the bonds