The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-01-08

Section 6 Of Article of the Constitu-
ton. for Il special county purpose
such tax should be applied under said
section to the purpose authorized
| by the act. and not under said section
| ? to education and the support of the
| poor.
Jones V. Marble Co, appellant From
Buncombe. No error.
Where an attorney sued to recover
| his fee of a client who alleged pay
ment of reasonable compensation and
| introduced an attorney associated
with plaintiff when the services were
rendered, whose testimony tended 10
show that plaintiffs charges were eX-
| cesSiVe, it was competent for plaintiff
to offer, on cross examination a dupli-
cate of a letter from witness to de-
PENDANT, which duplicate was sent by
witness to plaintiff and which EXPRESS
ed an opinion in reference to the
amount involved in the action in
which plaintiff was employed. con-
trary to that expressed by witness on
his examination. While such letter
was perpetually confidential as a com
municaton between attorney and client
Notwithstanding plaintiff was fur
nished q duplicate by the writer, the
confidence was waived by the client
(the defendanD Introducing the as
sociata counsel (the writer of the let
ter) to prove that plaintiffs charges
We're excessive.
Printing Press Co.. appellant V. Her
bert. From Lenoir. New trial
1t is too late after verdict 70 raise
the objection that there is no evil
dence to sustain the contention of the
winning party.
The requirement of Section 957 If
The Code. that the court shall render
such Judgment as on inspection of the
whole record appears ought in law to
be rendered, cannot be successfully
invoked in respect to lack of evil
dence appearing from the ease on
appeal" advantage of which should
have been taken before verdict even
when there is no prayer for instruc-
ton by either side and no exception TO
the charge.
An award of damages for land con-
demned for use of d railway may also
include damage accruing to the own
ers adjacent land. as well as the land
condemned.
The report of commissioners land
should as fully and correctly describe
the easement acquired thereby as it
would be described in n grant
Where plaintiff claimed a print
ing press by virtue Of a conditional
sale to w. S. H., deceased, and defend
ant claimed the same machine as re-
ceiver of q purchaser from w. II. S..
who he alleged bought for value before
registration of the conditional sale.
and without notice. it was error to
admit evidence Of declarations by
plaintiffs purchaser that his subse-
quent sale was for value Rule i'm
Worthy V. Cadet. 76 n. C. 50, approx
ed.
An alleged act Of corporation must
be shown to nave been done in its
corporate capacity; ii is not sufficient
even if sanctioned by majority Of the
stockholders if they We're not assemb-
led in corporate meeting.
City of Hickory. appellant V. So Rail
way Co. From CsttaWba. Error.
A railroad company may accept land
in trust to be used partly by it for
purposes of a depot ana by the public
as town common.
Where a deed to a railroad company
-recitng that it was made as a dup
licate-conVeyed land in trust for the
purposes of Il depot and a town COM
mon and not to be occupied to the
exclusion Of such use by the public,
and after the construction of the rail
road over the land, SAID deed was ac-
copied by the president of the road
within two years after the road was
constructed:
Held that the act CT The president
was binding on the company and it
and said deed precluded the presump-
ton of grant arising from the provis-
ion in its charter that in the absence
of a contract, unless tile owner of the
land over which the road was con-
structed applied for assessment etc,
within two years, a grant should be
presumed.
he Ohio ,+S,N CT h. art
Carolina Railroad Company Claws
1915 Oh. 228, Sections - and 229),
gives the company the right only 10
acquire by purchase or condemnation
such land as may be necessary FOR
its essential purposes.
Bond. appellant V. Wilson. From
Bourke. Error
\ judgment for plaintiffs awarded
them such sums as might be found
by calculation to be due on certain
notes as reduced by credits mentioned
in the judgment and named the rate
of interest to be allowed. Execution
on this judgment was recalled and
the court appointed a referee ito call
cuiate the amount due on the notes,
The referee did not observe the in
contained in the Judgment
as to a certain credit nor as to the |
rate of interest allowed Held error
i'm confirming the referees report.
Suffolk * Car Railroad, appellant Y.
W. r.. Land q Imp. Co. From |
Posqaotank. Affirmed.
The record of an appeal imports |
verify.
On the issue of damages in a cpe- |
ciaI proceeding to condemn suburban |
property to the use of a railroad. it |
is permissible to show on cross exam |
ination chat improvements of ADA /
cent property incr eased the value of
the land condemned. Riic V. Rail |
road. 1870 n. G. 375, distinguished.
The tax valuation Of property con- !
demned Off use of railroad lis not |
evidence OH the issue of
damages. Cardwell Y. Mebane. 6S n.
c. 485; Ridley V. Railroad. 124 y. c.
81.
The damages one is entitled to re-
cover for land condemned for use
of a railroad is not subject to de
crease on account of benefits which |
accrue to the pubHci generally by |
reason Of the constitution of the road.
even though uch benefits are enjoyed |
by the owner of the land himself |