The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-27

should not be charged the extra fare,
for cash fare paid ON the trains,
Plaintiff got on the train and the con-
ductor demanded the extra fare, which
nlaintiff refused to pay. Plaintiff
stated that if he was put off the train
he would sue the road, whereupon
the conductor replied that that didn't
make a burned bit of difference.
Plaintiff was put off within four hun
bred yards of his station and on the
trial proved damages. On intimation
of the court that he could not recover,
plaintiff took non-suit and appealed.
Held. That while the right of a rail-
road to charge an extra fare when
passenger elects to pay on the train
rather than at a station where con-
veniences for the purchase of tickets
are provided, is admitted to be rea-
sonable regulation, passenger who
has been denied such privilege of pur-
chasing a ticket is within his rights in
demanding transportation at the usual
rate and where he is elected after a
tender of such fare, he may recover
Western Carolina Bank and w. w.
Jones. Receiver. VS.. c. b. Moore.
Charles e. Jones, for plaintiff appel
liant; Moore and Rollins for defendant,
appellee. Holxe, j.
Plaintiff as receiver came into pos
session of a note of the defendant for
$500 and brought suit. Defendant an
swered that the note was given with
out consideration and on an agreement
that he should not be liable there
for. Officials of the bank had come
To him and stated that his father-ln-
law. who was a director, was heavily
involved as a debtor of the bank, and
that the institution was being criti-
cised by reason of such fact. 1t was
therefore proposed that defendant
give his note for the stock of his
father-in-law and become director,
the said stock to remain as collateral
to the debt of his father-in-law to-
gether with the note. The defendant
gave the note as asked, his father-ir-
law resigned and he became director
in his stead, as such attending meet
ings of the directors and drawing pay
therefor Afterwards the bank failed.
Held, That under such circumstar1-
ces the note was given for a consider
alton and was valid, and where the
jury had returned a verdict finding
the note to be the property of the
bank and the facts as to the agree
ment as testified to by the defendant,
itw as error i'm the court to refuse
Judgment to the plaintiff for the
amount of the note and interest.
r.. A. Jones VS.. American Warehouse
Company. Lindsay Patterson, Pou &
Fuller, Watson, Buxton and Watson
and Winston and Bryant, for petition
er; Manly and Hendren, contra. Argu-
ment on rehearing. Common. j.
This was a case in which heavy
damages was awarded the plaintiff for
injuries received while operating a
napper machine. The Supreme Court
affirmed the verdict below but after
wards grated rehearing There
was much conflicting evidence, the de-
PENDANT contending that the injury re-
suited from the plaintiff having had
truck knocked from beneath him
while at play in the mill and not on
the machine Other questions in
vclved and argued were as to appli-
ances necessary on napper machines
and undue assumption of risk by the
plaintiff. The court in its opinion re-
viewed the evidence and affirmed its
former decision, which has heretofore
been reported.
In addition to the opinions handed
down. the Chief Justice filed a con-
curing opinion in Pressly VS.. Rail
road, as to assumption of risk by en-
ployes. which was in part rs follows:
Clark, C. j., concurring, said:
could there be greater mockery
than to assert that the employer is
culpably negligent and pecuniarily LA
bic if dangerous and defective appli-
ances are furnished and then to hold
that if the laborer is mangled or killed,
there is no liability because by accept
ing employment the laborer had re-
leased the employer from liability
Labor is the basis of civilization. Let
it withhold its hand and the forests
return and grass grows in the silent
streets We are told in that excellent
little work, by some of the leading
lawyers of England The Century of
Law Reform which every lawyer
should read, that not so long since. in
England, labor unions were indictable
as conspiracies, and the wages of labor
were fixed by officers appointed by
capital, and it was indictable for Ia
borer to ask or receive more. There
was no requirement that employers
should furnish safe appliances. no linn
itations as to hours of labor, no age
limit With the era of more just legis-
lation in both this country and Eng
land, and elsewhere, shortening the
hours of labor. requiring sanitary pro-
visions and safe appliances. labor has
been encouraged and the progress of
the world in a few years has more
than equalled that of all the centuries
that are dead. Justice to the laborer
has been to the profit of the employer
The courts should not be less Just than
the laws"
Decisions i'm Epitome
Ammons VS.. Southern Railway,
from Swain: new trial.
Western Carolina Bank VS.. Moore.
from Buncombe; error.
Brown VS.. Asheyille Electric Co,
from Buncombe; affirmed.
State VS.. Mark Lytle, from Bun
combe; reversed.
Jones VS.. American Warehouse Co.,
from Forsyth; petition of defendant
to rehear dismissed, former ruling
sustained.
Green VS.. Green, from Jackson;
motion of defendant to reinstate APP
peal allowed.
Ancient witchery was believed in
by only a few but the true merit of
DeWitt's Witch Hazel Salve is known
by every Ire who has used it for
hollis. sores tattar eczema sand ltilaa.