The news & observer., 1905-12-06

tiff sues, alleging mental anxiety and
distress Defendant 'contended that,
since the wife recovered the delay of
the message could have had no effect
uoon the mental condition of the
plaintiff, except in so far as it may
have kept him for the time of the
delay from suffering anxiety, which
he might otherwise have experienced.
There were also exceptions to the ad-
mission of testimony as to certain
statements and admissions made by
the defendants agent after the de-
livery of the telegram.
Held: /. In case of the delay of a
telegram. even though no actual seri-
Gus result eventuates therefore. the
mental disturbance, fXexation and in
CT eased anxiety caused by the knowl-
edge of the delay is sufficient evil
dence of mental anxiety growing out
of such unreasonable delay to justify
it's consideration by the jury,
2. But no declaration or admis-
sion of an agent made at a place
other than that at which the occur
renee happened and without the
scope of his agency is admissible in
evidence as part of the res geStae.
j. II. Brown vs.. Southern Railway
Company, appellant, from Mellow
Il. ell. New TFial.rtsr- ,saf-
Plaintiff offered evidence tending
to show that his mule was killed by
reason of coming in contact with o
box car of defendant which had been
negligently left there by defendants
agents. There was motion for
nOn-suit which was denied. Defend
ant then rendered number of Wit
nesses to the plaintiff, whose coun@
sci having examined one of them,
~, ,s~rI,f Nd
clude the argument which was GLOW
cd by the court on+the ground that
the tender of the witnesses by the
defendant amounted to the introduce
ton of evidence.
Held: f.. Witnesses are vehicles or
means of proof and evidence the
proof itself. offered to establish or dis
prove an alleged fact, the truth of
which is in dispute and unless a
PARTY rendering a witness examine
him with a view of thereby eliciting
proof in support of his side of the
controversy, he cannot be said to have
introduced evidence.
2. Under the facts stated the priv
ilege allowed the plaintiff of opening
and concluding the argument was
error as being in violation of Rule g.,
1928 n. c., providing that where no
evidence is introduced by a defendant
he shall be allowed the right of reply
or conclusion
w. Il. Sprinkle. G'd'n. vs.. j. NJ. Well
born. appellant; From Wilkes. Nc
Error.
Action to set aside a deed to defend
antfrom Nancy Elvira Sprinkle to the
defendant for want Of power on thu
part of the grantor of mental capacity
and for alleged fraud and unrue in
nuonce by the defendant. The jury.
in response to the issues, found:
/. That a. the time of making
such deed tho said grantor had no
mental ca nacit.' to make the same
.. That defendant had notice of
her r1ecta! condition.
3. That defendant Dracticed nc
fraud OF undue Influence.
Their issues related 20 the value OF
the consideration paid which the jury
found to be loss than that of the land
conveyed, and to a purchase from the
i defendant who was declared to be
purchased for value and without no
',cc. After Tho rntu-n Of the verdict
the Court found that the answer OF tht
third issue was contrary TO the Welgh
OF the evidence and set the same aSlde
and that. uDon the answers TO une Is
md ID Issues. there had been tound II
the law. tho Court then answering TN
= iF~1p = 1c~. Plalnllu HlIOduCCN
the record of an enquiry into the men
80 toncltion of said Nancy Sprinkle l
which the Jury found that the was IN
cCm ~etent to mana~e h"r own pus
ines" Tho o:o~rirV was SubSequer
tn tho decd AID cff"rn only tof IN
consid Grafton &c tho JUDGE on IN
question Of tho competency OF de1end
ont's TESTIMONY. plaintiffs ward penn
then lunatic. plaint3H also intro
duced a record m an action by tn
Guardian oe Nancy Sprinkle TO annr
her marria-o to one Sims on IN
Ground of har incompetence. The de
fendant thon ;ntroeuced - recoro Oh
second INQUIRY into the m"nta. coma
tion of said Snrink'e - Wnl@h the JUL
! had found no. capable OF manaSlh
her affairs Both nartles ask"d TO ~
troduce tho records as evidence. pu
We're refused by the 1ud"e VINO als
! refused . .orrest cf counse! to adVef
! to them in his argument. During tn
argument however, the uuSc pelhS III
advertent. upeel on BON Sfc"S rt
/ ferred to the records there pelilg n
objection modc Until atfcr concluslo
2 of the casa. when counse. for detens'
/ movedNto set aside verdict on sucl
ground There were other exceptions
relating to refusal to give specidl III
| structions.
Held: /. While the more tact ina
/ one is of .waek undeTstand,TA' or
| Continued on Page Ten.)