The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-11
Head Notes of the Decisions
 Of Alabama Supreme Court

consideration Is not of itself sufficient grounds for cancelIing a lease. 1t must be so gross as to shock the conscience, and furnish satisfactory evidence of fraud.
 l"Rehearing denied June 30, 1908. Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court
 Heard before Hon. John J. Altman. Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson, J. Weakiey. C. J., Simpson and Ander- son, JJ., concur.
 WEBSTER vs. DEBARDELABEN EFT AL.
 Bill to construe Contract. and to en- join Interference with Subject Matter Thereof. Cross Bill Seek
 ing Affirmative Relief.--tDecided June SOth, 1906. Al So. Rep. Ss11 i. Injunction; preliminary injunc- ton; dissolution; denial of equity.-- Where the allegations of the bill, on which it's equity depended, are fully. directly and completely denied in the answer, and no equity appears, by the case made, why the injunction should be retained, it's dissolution should be decreed.
 2. Equity; cross bill: dismissal of original bill; effect.--Where the cross bill prays for affirmative relief, and alleges additional facts relating to the subject matter of the original bill, not therein alleged. the dismissal Of the original bill for want of equity does not carry the cross bill with 1t but the cross bill may be retained for the purpose of granting the relief sought therein.
 8. Injunction; cutting timber; cross bill: suficiency TO the original bin seeking to construe tHe contract of lease and enjoin interference with his subject matter, respondents filed cross bill, alleging that complainant in the original bill had, under the lease contract for cutting timber of certain dimensions, removed timber from the lands without paying there for, under the temporary injunction granted on original bill; that coni- plainant had also cut and carried away the most valuable trees and left standing the less valuable ones; had so mixed the timber cut under the contract with timber cut from other lands, that 1t was impossible to sep arate same; thAt the value of the timber cut was more than $1,0OO and because of the violation or the terms of the contract respondents had cleo ted to cancel same and hal so notis fled complainant, who disregarded such notice, and continued to cut and remove the timber; that complainant was insolvent, and would continue the acts complained of, unless restrained, and respondents would suffer- irrepar- able loss, for which they had no ade- auate remedy at law. Held. to state case for equitable relief by injune- tion.
 l. Injunction: preliminary injunc- tion; afidavits.-Affidavits are admis- sible in support of the allegations of a bill seeking injunction, in case of waste and where irreparable injury might ensue if the injunction be not granted.
 Appeal from Elmore Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. w. w. Whiteside
 Affirmed. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Weakley, C. J., Dowdell and Dem son, JJ., concur.
 FLEMING & HINES V. IA & M RAIL-
 ROAD co.
 New Trial-(Decided May 10, 1906.
 Al So. Rep. SS3.)
 New trial; disregarding instructions. The court charged the jury that, un- der the evidence, plaintiff could recov- CT no more than nominal damages. The jury returned a verdict for a larger sum, which verdict the court set aside. Held, proper, whether the charge was erroneous or/not.
 sRehearing denied June 30 1906. Apeal from Mobile Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne. Affirmed. Opinion by Anderson, J. Q Weakley, c. J., Tyson and Simpson, JJ., concur.
 DAVIS, H., vi THE STATE. Trespass After Warning .-(Decided De- cember 22. 1904" Al So. Rep. 681.)
 l. Contracts; building contracts; construction; right to terminate The contract made between the contractor and the owner of the dwelling provided | that the owner might terminate the contract, enter upon the premises, and complete the work whenever the ar chitect certified that the contractor re- fused to comply with it's terms. Held that upon the architects giving such a certificate, the owner was authorized to terminate the contract absolutely. | 2. Trespass; criminal responsibility trespass after warning Where, under | the terms of the contract, the owner o1 the premises terminated the contract and warned the contractor not to gC | upon the premises, and the contractor disregarded the warning and went up, on the premises. he was guilty of tres pass after warning. 1 @Rehearing denied July 6. 1906. l Appeal from Mobile City Court. | Heard before Hon. O. J. Semmes. | Affirmed. Opinion by Mcclellan, c. J Tyson, Simpson and Anderson, u .. concur.
 LEE V. THE STATE. Failure to Work Public Road Joe cided June 30. 1906. 41 So. Rep. | 671.)
 Indictment and information; issues variance; matters unknown to granC | jury While Sec 4901, Code of 1896 dlspenses with the necessity of laying the precise time, ina the indictment, O the commission of ah offense, where ar indictment charges an offense to hay, been committed in a certain month, anC proof Is. offered by the State of an of fense committed at another time. de 1 Eanaant Ia anlltlaa tn ahnHu that as tl