The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-31
THE SUPREME COURT
NEGRO WOMAN RECOvERs FROM
 FURNITURE COMPANY.
Owner of Property Cannot Forcfbiy Enter Property of Another 10
 Seize It~-Other Decisions.

That ownership of property does not entitle the owner to forcipiy en- ter the hous of another person Tn whose possession the property may pc. was a fact brought out in decision Of Justice Denson. handed down Tn the Supreme Court yesterday
 Tn the case of A. c. Rhodes and Son Company against Laura Charleston. which had been appealed from the Montgomery City Court. where dam- ages had been assessed against the appellants to the extent of Ss0. the de- cision of the lower court was affirmed by Justice Denson. Chief Justice Weak ley and Justices Haraison and Dowdeii concurring.
 The ease had been brought to the Montgomery City Court at the instance of Laura Charleston. who asked for $500 damages against the Rhodes Company for entering her house on Franklin Street and taking therefrom various articles of furniture and per sonal property. Manager W. Nj. Mar tin, of the Rhodes Company, pleaded not guilty, and presenJted the fact that he held written lease for the property in question. In this lease, the plaintiff in the case had agreed to pay SITS for a certain amount of fur niture. s45 of which was included in a cash payment, the remainder to be paid in weekly installments of s1.
 Another clause in the agreement. or lease. was that the furniture should not be moved from the place where the purchaser lived at the time it was bought. without the permission of the furniture company. The Rhodes Com pany's counsel brought out at the trial in the lower courts, that the fur niture had been moved. Whom the purchaser. who had failed to remit all the payments. had been located on Franklin Street, the holders of the lease entered the house during her absence, and seized upon the goods.
 In the previous trial of the case, the jury awarded the plaintiff s9o in damages. This verdict was affirmed in the opinion handed down yesterday.
 Street Railway Suit. case which has attracted consid- erable attention throughout the State was brought to close yesterday. when Justice Haralson, with Chief Justice weakley, and Justices Dowdeil and Simpson concurring, handed down an opinion affirming the award of $2,- 500 made in the Birmingham City Court. to Daniel o. Ryan, adrninistra- tor of the estate of Konrad Raichwein, who was killed by street car of the Birmingham Railway. Light and Pow CT Company Tn JSul.
 The original suit in the case was for S25,000 damages. It was first l brought to trial in the winter term Of the Birmingham court in 1902. when the jury was disagreed. A date was set for new trial, and on May IS 1903, the case was continued. It was not until January, 1904. that the case was finally concluded in the lower court. the jury at that time assessing damages against the car company of s2.5o0. The appeal was then brought to the Supreme Court
 The judgment of the Montgomery City Court was affirmed second time yesterday, in an opinion handed down by Chief Justice weakiey, in the case of J. D. Belote and Sons against M iP. Wilcox. Concurring in the opinion
 of the Chief Justice were Justices lHaralson, Dowdell and Denson.
 car of sweet potatoes, delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, fol
 which the latter refused to pay fui
 price, alleging short weight, was tht
 cause of the original litigation. The
 barrels in the car, according to the Icontract between the two parties
 should weigh 165 pounds each. When
 they were received, the defendant claimed the barrels ran from 11E bounds to 130 pounds in weight. He loffered to pay for the carload if fif- teen cents were deducted from the
 price of each barrel. The carload con ltained 1So barrels. Later, no response to his offer being received, he alleged he refused to take them at all.
 Judgment had been rendered in the lower court in favor of the defendant
 to the extent of s32. This judgment was affirmed yesterday.
 Decisions of Court. II Following are the opinions handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday
 Weakley. c. J.:
 J. D. Belote and Son vs. M. P. Will Court affirmed.
 Haralson, J:
 Birmingham Railway, Light and Power Company vs. Daniel 0. Ryan,