The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-04-19

! Ireland, from Davie; affirmed. Carrie
| W Jones: reversed and remanded
| Crawford " Telegraph Co, from DAY.
| idson; no error. Rollins V. Ebbs. from
| Haywood; petition to rehear allowed
| and judgment below affirmed. Clegg
V. Railway, from Iredell, per curiam,
affirmed. Click V. Locomobile Co,
from Forsyth, per curtain; defendants
appeal dismissed under Rule II. King
v Kerner from Forsyth, per curiam;
defendants appeal dismissed under
Rule II.
Argument Yesterday.
The argument of chiefest interest
yesterday was on a motion to rehear
in the case of Jones V. Warehouse
Company, argument being heard from
Messrs. Pou, Watson, Manly and Pat
terson. and Judge Winston, of Dur
ham.
The plaintiff was hurt permanently
by an injury to his spine. He was at
work for the defendant in mill and
suffered two accidents. One occurred
during the rest hour at night, when
plaintiff wa sthrown from a truck on
which he had been projecting" and
as defendant claims then received his
injury.
Plaintiff contends that the injury
was received while he was at work
in mill at his machine; that in adj
justing a small belt to the pulley of
the brush" on the machine, he had
to put his hand in between the band
of a larger belt also connected with
the machine; that his sleeve caught in
some way in this larger belt and he
was thrown violently against the wall
and injured. The plaintiff also testi-
fled that he had been in the habit of
adjusting the small belt only after he
had stopped his machine, but that
he had been instructed by the fore
man to do so while the larger belt
was in motion and the machine run
ming. The case is considered of great
importance to mill men by reason of
the fact that it is felt that if the
plaintiff, who had been operating the
machine for four months, is allowed
to recover, it will do away with the
defense of an intelligent assumption
of risk by an operative such as to re-
lieve the employer of liability
Other cases argued yesterday were
Whitaker VS.. Whitaker, by Watson
| for plaintiff and Manly for defendant;
Doss VS.. Hutson, by Manly for the
plaintiff, Shepherd and Holcomb for
! the defendant; Bullen VS.. Hancock, by
| Reese and Folger for the plaintiff and
| Manly for the defendant.
Corporation Commission Powers.
|
| Lumber Company VS.. the Atlantic
| Coast Line Railroad, which involves
| the power of the Corporation Commits
( sion to require the defendant to pro-
| vide scales for the weighing of lum-
| Der at Elm City, where plaintiff has
| shipping yards, will be argued today,
| Hon. f. A. Woodland being here to ap-
pear for the plaintiff. The case is
! entitled estate ex rel Corporation
N.rRA rRAfc ts<NE, o.
| The matter has been previously heard
| by the commission and is in the Su-
preme Court on appeal of the Rail-
| road.
Twelfth District Appeals.
| Twelfth District appeals for next
week have been set in the following
order:
State VS.. Hough; Holder VS.. Manu-
| featuring Company; in re Morris Es-
| tate; PRESLEY VS.. Dover Mills; Parks
vs. Robinson; Teeter VS.. Wallace;
Summers VS.. Railroad; CrowelI VS..
| Insurance Company; Coleman vs.
| Railroad; McGinn VS.. Bankers Union
State VS.. McGinnis, from Wake, spe-
| cially set for end of this district;
| State VS.. Gatewood, from Person,
specially set for end of this district;
State VS.. Clayton, from Person, spe-
| cially set for end of this district.
Bucket Shop" Cases Postponed.
The two cases to be heard under
indictments brought under the Wood
| ard Bucket Shop" act, which were to
have been heard at the end of this
! district, were yesterday agreed to be
placed at the end of the twelfth dis
trict, as it was evident that with the
] large number of cases to be heard
| the court could not reach them this
week.