The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1905-04-21
SUPREME COURT
Delivers Opinions in Number of
0biop County Cases.

obior County Cases.
jackson, Tenn, April 15.-The
Supreme Court delivered opinions
to- day in a number of cases heard
during the week. All the court
except Justice Shields delivered
opinions, which were as follows;
By Neil, j.:
Lille Lee VS.. john Frank Lee
ct al, Obion law. This is a suit
for divorce. This court allows the
aIimony, as did the court below.
As to the land in Arkansas, Mrs.
Lee will have to take chance with
the other creditors. Case affirmed.
Morgan Hardy Grain Co. ct al.
VS.. Dahnke- Walker Milling Go. ct
al, Obion County. The court be-
low declined to allow damages or
compensation. The decree is af-
tirmed.
Beard. G. j.;
Charles Hellenbeck VS.. Cumber-
land Telephone and Telegraph
Company and Western Union Tel.
egraph Company. This is an ac-
tion for damages against the com
panies because of failure to deliver
telegram from Union City to
Brookhaven, Miss, to the mother
of a sick child. The Circuit Judge
is affirmed and case dismissed.
Mayor and Aldermen of Union
City VS.. Abe Walker. This was
for a fine imposed by the City Re.
corder against Walker, restau-
rant keeper, who sold "beerine. !"
The real test of the case is as to
sale of beerine, and as to whether
it was an intoxicant or not. Jones
says it was an intoxicant, and
Walker says he thinks it is not an
intoxicant, but that enough of it
would kill a man. Case is affirmed.
By M'Alister, j.:
State VS.. Nell Carter, Obion
criminal. This involves a question
of costs for witness fees. The wit
ness was summoned while living
in Weakley County. Afterward
he moved to Oklahoma and had to
return as witness. The case was
not passed. He was allowed fees
and mileage for Tennessee and not
for amount beyond the State. This
suit is against allowing him this
Tennessee mileage. This court al
lows him mileage for Tennessee.
As to the writ of error for disal
lowing compensation for mileage
beyond the State, there is no stat
ute for this. The witness is not
to mileage beyond the
State, and this is affirmed.
Rogers, Watson & Howard VS..
Mobile and 0 hio Railroad, Obion
law. This is suit for partial
damages to two carloads of mules,
shipped on the road. No assign
ment of error is made on facts and
The case is considered from the
points of common law advanced.
The burden of proof is on the car
rier to show that he was guilty of
40 negligence; this he has not
lone. Case is affirmed.
Chicago, st. Louis and New Or
cans Railroad Company and lii
lois Central Railroad Company Il
rs. Pink Russell, administrator.
This is suit for damages for
ieath of minor. The first ques-
ion is as to who should have
suit as benefciarles. The
iuit was brought by the father as
which is correct.
An error was committed in this
iase against the plaintiff. The
;ourt stated that only an amount
;ould be recovered for the wages
# the young man killed up to the
Ige of 81 years, going on the the
Try that the suit was brought as
lis father, while really it was as
administrators, and he could have
recovered for lifetime expectancy
if deceased. There is some evi-
Ience that the crew of the freight
rain failed to observe the statute
y precauton, though there was
sreat contributory negligence on
,art of deceased. There is no re-
error. Case affirmed. Ii
Mary Ridley VS.. Mobile and
)hio Railroad Company, Obion
aw. In the lever court Mary