The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-01
Mrs. Bidwell Loses Her Sui
Continued from Page Five.)

L NcOilttuueU from rage fiNC.J
matter under the provisions of section
$50 of the Code relative to testimon.
concerning transactions with a de-
ceased person in actions against tn.
administrator of such person, and re-
quested the judge to charge that sucl
Expressions and comment were inn
proper and that the plaintiff could no.
nave testified as to such transactions
and the judge failed to so charge. but
stated to the jury that the defend
ants counsel was right in the state
ment that there was no law in III
that the whole matter was one Of fact,
lWhether the amount was due or not.
Held: That such instruction was
improperly refused and that the Court
SHOULD have explained to the jury the
incompetency of the evidence, the
want of which was made Il subject OF
comment by counsel and that such
failure constituted error for which
there must be a new trial
+. +. Glenn, appellant. vs.. Commits
sioncrs Of Moore County; from
Moore. No Error.
The father of the plaintiff built q
bridge and permitted the opening OF
his lands for the purpose of a public
road which was established by the
county. He erected a mill near the
| bridge, and by contract, the county
| through its commissioners. agreed tc
maintain said bridge and spent vari-
Gus sums in the maintenance thereof.
| Afterwards. the lands adjacent to the
bridge having come into the posses
| sion of the plaintiff, the commission
ers refused TO eXpend the money
| necessary for the repair of said bridge
| another bridge having been opened q
half mile below the bridge adjacent tC
| plaintiffs land The plaintiff sought
Il NV 4
and tax payer to compel the commits
| ,ioners TO repair the bridge.
Held: |. That the contract set up as
| having been made by a former board
| of commissioners was void as far as il
| affected the action of subsequently
| elected boards. there being no power
in the legislature or in the commits
sioners, it's creatures, to contract in
| perpetuity.
| 3 That while as {. matter or public
policy the plaintiff might by manda-
| mus seek TO compel the board to the
performance Of a public duty, the
question of maintaining a road or a
bridge was a matter within their dis
| erection.
j. J.. Wilson ys. Duplin Telephone Co..
appellant: from DupIin. No Error.
| Where a plaintiff was a subscriber
! to stock in corporation and had paid
part of the purchase price and was
| afterwards called upon for the bal
ance and failed to pay and the stock
vas advertised for sale, whereupon
plaintiff rendered the amount due and
interest to the president of the COM
| pany, who refused to receive the
money, but had the stock sold as ad-
| vertiscd.
Held: That such tender imposed the
duty on such corporation to deliver the
stock. the sale was a nullity and the
plaintiff is entitled to a mandamus to
compel the delivery of the certificate
o him upon payment Of the balance
due and interest to the day of such
ender.
ELLA j. BidWell, appellant. W. Geo. III
| BidWcll, from Wake. No error.
| Action for maintenance and sup
port of minor, child. The plaintiff was
the wife of Geo. H. Bidwell, who sew
eral years previously had obtained a
tivorce from her in the State of North
| Dakota in which action she was
served with process, Afterwards
plaintiff had sued the defendant in
| Massachusetts for divorce, contestine
The validity of the North Dakota di-
Ivorce. and askin alimony. In both
suits, both being decided adversely tC
the plaintiff in this case, allowance was
made for the child of the plaintiff in
her custody. Plaintiff alleges the il
reason that Geo. H. Bidwell was not a
resident of that State, having gone
1 thereto not as a citizen but for the
purpose of obtaining a divorce. De
| PENDANT in this action has since mar
| ried another woman by whom he has
| a minor child;
1 Held: That while it is settled doc
| trine that where neither part has a
| 1omicile in the forum in which a di-
4 jc oh w h.
| ions of this State have been that where
| the plaintiff only has such domicile
| and has obtained a divorce by con-
| structive process on the defendant
| such divorce was invalid as affecting
the status of citizens of the State, the
| better doctrine is that where the domi-
ellie of the plaintiff has been acquired
in good faith the divorce is binding
in all Jurisdictions
2. Where, however, the action is
| started in the State of plaintiffs domi-
| ellie and defendant has been served
| and appears. such decision is bar to
| subsequent action on the part of the
| plaintiff in such suit.
| 3. After awards in two DEGREES, it
is question whether plaintiff in this
case is not estopped by conduct in
| pals from asserting a claim for furth-
er pecuniary allowance against de-
/ fendant.
| Cobb VS. Ray. from Buncombe, reI
curtain. petition to re-hear dis
missed
Cases Argued Yesterday.
Tenth district cases were argued
l Yesterday as follows:
/ State VS.. Thompson; by Attorney
| General for State r. l.. Smith for
| defendant
Wright VS.. Cotton; by Wilson and
King Kimball for plaintiff, Kluttz
and Price for attendant.
Mizenheimer VS.. Richie; by Adams
| Jerome * Armfield and r. l.. Smith
for plaintiff, j. r. Price for defend
/ ant
Caviness VS.. Fidelity Co.; by Elijah
| Moffitt and l.. w. Humphrey for APP
pellant H. A. London & Son for APP
/ pellee, Russell
Eleventh district cases will be
called next Tuesday. November Z, in
| the following order:
/ Wall vs. Smith.
1 Bunker VS. Bunker.