The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-05-26
Its ConsttHi0naIib Upheld by the
State Supreme Court.
WHITES MUST SERVE SENTENCE
Convicted of the Murder of. Russell
Sheriff. and Given Six Years i'm the
observation-disclosures in Three
Cases Brought to Test the Constifu-
tionality OF the Bucket Sltop Law.
Other Supreme Court Decisions
Especial to The Messenger,

Raleigh, \. c., May 23.--It appears
TO have been expected that the test
case OF the state against Eugene e.
McInnis, representative OF Ware & Le-
land, under what is known as anti
bucket shop law, would 30 against
ham. The lower cour. 50 decided. The
supreme court now sustains that de-
cision. Mciinnis contended that the
amendment To- the United states COLI
stitution, because II did not Apply To
manufacturers ana wholesalers in pur-
chase or the sale OF necessary cummod-
tiles required in the ordinary course of
their business. The court SIys this
section of the constitution il not ger
name 10 the case. and that the Law is
IN abolish bucket shops ana 50 pre-
vent dealing in futures The statutes
do not prohibit bona iide purchases
a: sales for future delivery. tn leg
islature had full power Ia make the
business of operating bucket shops In
dictable and McGinnis was conducting
such Il business. Judge Clark deliver
Ell the opinion. There We're TWO more
bucket shop cases, one the state against
Gatewood, from Person, and the other
the State vs.. Clayton, from Person, the
latter being the case in which Il whole
sale merchant claimed that under the
act he could buy pork futures without
any purpose to deliver. The lower
court held he had violated the new
law II the Supreme court so holds.
In the case Of the state against the
LIothers named White, tried III Rowan
last autumn for the murder OF Rus
sell Sheriff., whom they alleged had Sc
duced their young niece, and which re-
suited in the conviction of murder i'm
the second degree and SIX years SEN
tence, the Supreme court finds no err
ror. Judge Hoke delivered the opin-
ion.
other opinions were as follows:
Rowe VS.. Lumber Co, no error, State
VS.. McGinnis. from Wake. 10 error:
Commissioners VS.. Stafford, from Chat
ham, alfred; State rs. Gatewood( from
Person, no error; State VS.. Clayton,
from Person, no error; State vs.. White.
from Rowan, no error: Cheek vs.. Wal
ker, from Durham, rffirmed, Janney
VS.. Blackwell, from Caldwell, affirmed:
NUT W.. I-uIlDeT Company, from burke
affirmed; State VS.. Shines, from Aadi-
son, no error; State VS.. Peter Smith,
from Madison, no error; Whitaker VS.
jenkins, from Buncombe, no error. i'm
re Merrick, Campbelrs appeal, from
Buncombe, no error; in re Merrick,
Jones appeal, affirmed; Kerr and Mar
tin VS.. Girdwood, from Buncombe. af-
frmed; Cressler VS.. Asheville, from
Buncombe, affirmed: Vance VS.. Rail-
way Company, from Buncombe, no
error; Penland VS.. Ingle, from Bun
combe, two cases, both decided i'm ia
vor of the defendant: Green VS.. Green.
from Jacksonville, dismissed under
ule II; State VS.. Cook, from Madison,
per curiam. no error: State VS.. Sarah
j. Lyttle, from Buncombe, per curtain,
no error; Switzerland VS.. School Com
mittee, from Buncombe, per curiam.
affirmed: Curtis VS.. Electric Co, from
Buncombe. per curtain. affirmed; Shut
tie VS.. Rwy. Co., from Buncombe, per
curtain, affirmed; State VS.. Lee, from
Guilford, per curtain, no error.