The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-05-24

ants could have been guilty, giving
them the advantage of the rejected
testimony, was that of murder in the
second degree.
State VS.. Peter Smith. Defendant
was convicted of rape at February
term, 1905, of Madison Superior court
held by Moore, Judge. Evidence was
that he had seized his victim in the
night when she had left her father
house for a short while and was re-
turning and had taken her to the
woods and kept her away all night,
repeatedly assaulting her; that her
cries had been heard and that she
was seen returning and Immediately
told of the outrage. Held, That state
mentS made to an officer while under
arrest and without solicitation as to
what he intended to do when he got
out of Jail this time and what he had
intended to do when he was last re-
leased after three years imprisonment
for killing a Woman-Such statements
having been admitted in evidence
did not constitute confession such
as could not be used by the proSecu-
ton on the trial.
State VS.. Charley Shines. Defendant
was convicted of rape at Madison
court, February term, 1905, Judge
Moore presiding. Evidence was that
he had entered house of prosecutriX
with knife in his hand. Prosecutrix
seized an axe but was disarmed by
defendant who dragged her away
from her house and accomplished his
crime. Defendant contended that
there was error in the court admit
ting testimony that prOsecutriX had
told several persons soon after the Oc
currence that she had been mis-
treated Held such evidence was
not only competent but it was the
duty of the prosecution to show that
prosecutrix had told of the assault;
that failure to so show, if she had
had opportunity, would have tended
to discredit her testimony
j. II. Kerr and j. G. Martin, EXr's VS..
George Girdwood est ais.
Proceeding for construction of
will in which testator had referred to
request of her deceased husband as
having been that certain property
should be left to certain relatives after
death of testator to whom all property
had been devised previously. The
property mentioned had not been
otherwise disposed of except by impli-
cation in the quoting of the remarks
of deceased husband in the Will. Held,
that such words, coupled with the
failure to otherwise devise the prop
erty in question rendered the recital
of the request of the husband in the
will testamentary so as to pass title as
indicated.
Battery Park Bank VS.. Western Caro-
lima Bank. In re Merrlck and
Hewitt.
Action involving title to land. Plain
tiff, one Clement, had given deed of
trust to Western Carolina Bank while
an officer of same to secure debt.
Afterwards he signed deeds together
with other proper officers conveying
the property conveyed by the deed of
trust in fee. On his contention that
the deed of trust had not been can
celled, Held that by joining in the
deeds plaintiff had created an equit-
able estoppel to deny the cancellation
of the deed of trust.
Commissioners of Chatham VS.. +. NJ.
Stafford and Co.
Action involving validity of issue of
$40 900 of bonds authorized to be is
sued by commissioners by act of the
Legislature for necessary expense.
Act had passed in conformity with
Article 9, Section IA of the Constitu-
ton until it's last reading in second
house when an amendment was in
serted without the taking of the aye
and nay vote, whereupon it went
back to the first house and was again
passed. Held that the authority of the
Legislature to authorize the bonds lis
we'll established and that where an
amendment inserted after the provis-
ions of the constitution have been
otherwise complied with does not in
crease the amount of the indebted
ness to be authorized, such amend
ment does not need for passage the
formalities prescribed by the consti-
tuition for the passage of bills author
ling the contraction of debts.
State VS.. Clayton. Where a whole
sale merchant purchased on margin
five thousand barrels of pork to be
delivered on the first of July. Held,
that section seven of the Woodland
bin excepting manufacturers and
wholesale dealers from the provisions
of that act and the penalties for its
violation when they may make sales
or purchases for future delivery is
not a defense to the provisions of the
act restrictive of wagering contracts
in futures.
Hull VS.. Lumber Company. Where
a stakeholder gave note to a company
for stock and the same was sold for
non-payment of the note. Held he
cannot maintain an injunction against
the transfer after the stock has been
delivered and the money paid, even
if the same was sold for less than par.
Vance VS.. Railroad. Plaintiff is
father and administrator of deceased
killed by railroad in Buncombe coun-
ty Deceased lived in Tennessee as
did his wife. The wife relinquished
rights of administration to the plain
tiff who resided in Buncombe and
took out letters and brought suit. De-
PENDANT contended that letters could
not be issued since deceased had no
assets in Buncombe County and none
had come into the county since his
death. Held that while the statute
must be strictly complied with in the
granting of letters, the fact that they
were granted by the clerk is a pre-
sumption that he acted with knowl-
Continued On Page Sikh