davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-10-02
Hughes Still Favorite.

NEW YORK, Oct. 2.-Betting re-
mains to l in favor of Hughes Yes
test. 1t is believed Hughes will have
the full support Of the administration.
The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-10-02
Helped His Ambition.

THANK you, judge" said the prison
er sentenced to thirty days on bread
and water.
Seeing that the magistrate was puz-
zled, he explained that he long had de-
sired to try the simple life, but lacked
the courage to begin. - Philadelphia
Ledger
The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-10-02
An Exception.

Mrs. Peagreen-Is Is always an un-
lucky number?
Not when you hold all of the trumps
In a game Of whist.-Kansas City In
dependent
The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-10-02
Oreuon Wants to FIGHT,

PORTLAND, Oct. 2.-The national
guard. through the governor. has been
offered to the president for services
in Cuba.
The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1906-10-02
Diagnosis.

Knicker-My wife says she feels like
an old rag. Bocker-Then the only cure
Is to buy her some new ones.-Nev
York Sun.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
DAMAGES ARE PAID
MISS BARGANIER GETS AMOUNT or
 VERDICT.
Young Lady Plaintiff in the Damage Suit Paid Sum of e6,3O0 by the
 Louisville and Nashville.

Payment of s6,3oo. the amount awarded to Miss Ella Sue Barganier. of Fort Deposit. from the Louisville and Nashville Railroad. in the s50,000 suit recently heard in the United States Court, was made to the attorneys representing the winner of the suit yesterday. Contrary to the general expectation the time the jury's yer dict was pronounced, the railroad com pany decided not to appeal the case. but to pay the full amount awarded to the plaintiff.
 Miss Barganier was injured some months ago at Fort Deposit. while driving across the tracks of the rail- road. A backing train struck the carriage in which she was seated. In the leap to save herself. Miss Bargan- fer fell into a ditch at the side of tha track, sustaining severe injuries, and shock, from which she has not yet re- covered.
 In the suit for damages, Miss Bar ganier was brought into the United States Court room in wheel chair. She was accompanied by her sister. who gave testimony supporting her case
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
Fa.hIons in New York.

New York modistes are just now up to their ears in work. preparing trous- seaux and gowns for Spring weddings, says Helen Berkeley in the May De- lineator. All the newest bridal gowns are cut on princess lines. but dis. tinctive feature is the abbreviation or the princess as we have known 1t. into the baby princess" The skirt, with the addition of a Wattoau plait in the back opens out into train. and Is the newest effect in wedding gowns. The Watteau plait is not essential but as it adds dignity and grace. and helps hold the veil In position, its use is ad- visable. Silk and cotton hajahs, mus lins and linens have prominent place in the trousseau.
 Linen has a particularly strong vogue an dis used for morning frocks in white and colors in sheerest qua and delicate tints for the afternoon gowns. The new parasols this season are simply beautiful, but not beautiful ly simple. They are made to match the afternoon gowns and show the same trimming. One finds them of hand painted chiffon, bordered and inserted with duchess lace. and of the sheerest Persian lawn wrought in the daintieSt lingerie effects. Many of the handles are expensively jeweled. The sticks are delicately enameled, and some are ex- tra long and have hinge near the catch that they maye be folded when out of service.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
NELSON vs. STATE.
 (Decided February 1st, 1906.)-40 So.

Decided February 1st, 1sos'>-4o so'
 Rep. 221.) t
 1. Homicide; Admissibility of Evf- dence: Intoxication of Deceased.-ln homicide. defendant may show. Tn sup. port of the issure of self-defense, that deceased was intoxicated and the de- gree of such intoxication at the time of the difficulty, but cannot show the habits of deceased in that respect.
 g. Witness; Improper Questions Tn homicide, 1t was improper for the solicitor for the state to ask witness introduced by him in behalf of the state if he had been summoned by defen- dant.
 3. Criminal Law; Argument of Coun- seI.-In homicide. counsel in argument to the jury should confine themselves to the facts shown by the testimony and fair and reasonable deductions therefrom, and should not state as facts matters of which there is no evidence.
 f. Homicide-Manslaugh Defi- nition-Manslaught in the second de- gree is the unlawful. involuntary kill ing of a human being, and charge which, after defining manslaughter in the first degree as voluntary killing. states that a killing under any other circumstances would be manslaughter in the second degree. is erroneous.
 5. Criminal Law; Instructions.-7In homicide, a charge that before the jury can convict defendant, the hypothesis of his guilt should be consistent with all the circumstances, is misleading.
 6. Same--In homicide, charge that, before the jury should convict defendant, the hypothesis of his guilt should flow naturally from the facts proven and be consistent with all the facts in the case. should be given.
 T. Same.-In homicide, a charge that a person charged with felony should
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19

not be convicted, unles the evidence excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, was rendered bad by a con- cluding clause that circumstances. however strong, do not come up to the full measure of proof.
 8. Same--In homicide a charge that if the evidence Is reasonably consis- tent with defendants innocence the jury should acquit him should have been given.
 9. Same.-In homicide, charge that the jury should be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, 'to the exclusion of every probability of innocence" be- fore they can convict defendants, was rendered faulty by the quoted clause.
 10. Same.-A charge that If there is a, probability of defendants innocence the jury should acQuit should have been given.
 II. Same-In homicide, charges that defendant enters into the trial with a presumption of innocence, which is a fact to be considered as evidence, and should not be disregarded. and that the burden is on the state to convince the jury of defendants guilt to the exclus- ion of every reasonable doubt and by evidence that overcomes the presump- ton of innocence, are correct.
 12. Same; Appeal; Harmless Error In homicide, the refusal of charges on the question of murder was harmless, where defendant was only convictel of manslaughter.
 IS. Homicide; Instructions.-In homi- eide, a charge that defendant need not have been in real danger in order to justify him in killing deceased. and that, if he was in a position where it reasonably appeared to him that he was about to lose his life and there was no mode of escape without increasing his danger, he would be justified in kill ing deceased to save his own life. pro- vided he was free from fault in bring ing on the diff1culty. was objectionable, in that it assumed that defendant was in danger, either real or apparent, and 1t did not postulate that the appear ances were such as to create in the mind of defendant a reasonable and honest belief that he was in danger of losing his life or of suffering grevious bodily harm.
 Appeal from Bessemer City Court.
 Heard before Hon. Wm. Jackson.
 Reversed Opinion by Tyson, J.
 Dowdcll, Simpson and Anderson, JJ concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
MOBILE DRY DOCK CO, ct al, vs. CITY OF MOBILE.

O1l OE MoDll<Es Ejectment-(Decided February 6, 1906.l
 --(40 So. Rep. 205)
 l. Ejectment; Burden of Proof.--A plaintiff in ejectment must recover up- on the strength of his own title. and until he has made out a prima facie case the defendant Is not required to offer any evidence.
 2 Constitutional Law Statutes; Presumptions.-Thep presumption Is al- ways indulged that a statute is con- stitutional. and 1t will not be declared otherwise unless no doubt exists of its unconstitutionality.
 B. Statutes; Constitutional Require ments; Title of.-The act entitled an act granting to the City of Mobile the riparian rights to the river front (Acts 1S66-67, p. 307). but the body of which grants to the City of Mobile the shore and soil under the Mobile River within the city limits, is violative of Section 2, Article 4, Constitution of 1865, and similar provisions of subsequent constt- tutions, i(Tyson, J. dissents.)
 Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne,
 Reversed and Remanded. Opinion by Dowdell, J.
 Haralson Simpson, Anderson and Denson, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19

The Southern Railway Company an- nounces very low rates to Chattanooga. Tenn, on account of the "SOuthern Baptist Convention," May 10 to 15. Tickets on sale May Sth, 9th, and 10th, limit 10 days from date of sale. Extension. of limit may be had until June 18th, by depositing ticket and payment of fee of 50 cents.
 For further information call on or address,
 JnO. Metcaife, T. P. A.,.
 Montgomery, Ala, If. Telephone POI.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
RAY vs. STATE.

(Decided February 1st, 1s06.)-4o So.
 Rep. 224)
 Criminal Law: Appeal: Bill of Ex- captions; Order After Term Time; Vali- dity.-An order extending the time for signing a bill of exceptions made after the expiration of the term of the court at which the case was tried is void, and bill of exceptions signed after the adjournment of the term under such an order, will be stricken on motion.
 Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. Paul Speake.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Dowdell, J.
 Tyson. Simpson and Anderson, JJ.. concur
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
HeAd-Notes 0f the Decisions
 of Alabama Supreme Court

I less negligence is shown in the master | himself. or the case Is brought within the employers liability act. {. Same. Complaint.-A count framed 1 under Sub division of Section 174s: Code of 1896, which fails to aflege that the engine or cars by which the em- ployes was struck was lon any rail- road track" did not state cause of action.
 5. Headings: Allegation of venire: Defensive Matter.-A complaint need not allege that the action was brought in the county where the injury occur red, or in the county where the plain tiff resides, as provided by Acts 1903. D. 1S2, this being matter of defense
 6. Master and Servant; Injuries to Servant; Jury Question.--where there was a conflict in the evidence as to the giving of signals to stop and as to the safety of the running board, the afYirm- alive charge was properly refused to defendant
 z. Trial Special Findings: Several Counts.-It is proper to refuse to de- on a certain count, where the complaint contained several counts
 s. Master and Servant: Injury to Ser want: Contributory Negligence; Instruc- tions.-An instruction that if plaintiffs conduct approximately contributed to his own injury he could not recover was properly refused. as not being pr sdi- cated upon any negligence on plaintiffs part,
 same; willful Injury-where there was proof tending to sustain the charge of wanton, reckless or intentional con- duct on part of defendants engineer which resulted in injury to plaintiffs intestate, 1t was proper to refuse to instruct the jury that if there was a safe way for plaintiffs intestate to have discharged his duties. and an ob- viously dangerous way. and he chose the obviously dangerous way he could not recover.
 10. Same; Assumption of Risk.-Pleas of Assumption of risk of employment set mp no defense to counts for wtilfuis wanton or intentional negligence.
 Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. E. B. Almon.
 sRehearing denied Jan. 9. 1905.
 Reversed. Opinion by Simpson.
 Mcclellan. c. J., Tyson and Anderson, JJ.. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19

amendatory of an act approved Feb ruary sth 1901 (Acts 1903, p. 39S) was sufficient and not violative of Section 106 of Constitution of 1901.
 Appeal from Coffee Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. W. L. Parks.
 Affirmed, Opinion by Haralson. J.
 Dowdell. Simpson and Anderson. JJ.. concur. si
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
BROADHEAD vs. THE STATE. ( rAaiIaa nak 1aAc Sc

Decided February IT, 1906.)-(40 So.
 Rep. 216)
 Criminal Law; Appeal; Record; De- murrer.--A demurrer which appears in a bill of exceptions. but is not set out in the record, cannot be considered on appeal
 Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. John Pelham. Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson, J. Haralson, Dowdell, Anderson and Denson, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
GALLOWAY COAL co. vs. WALKER

 ct al. Decided February r.. 1906.)-(40 So.
 Rep. 216)
 Eminent Domain; Judgment; Appeal; Time of Taking-Section of Acts 1903, pp. 377-7S, which amends Section 1720 of Code of 1S96, requires all appeals from final judgment in condemnation proceedings to be taken within thirty days after such judgments. and applies to all judgments in such. cases rendered after the passage of the Act. and an appeal taken after the expiration of thirty days from judgment will be dis missed.
 Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. Daniel Partridge. Jr.
 Appeal dismissed. Opinion by Haral- son, J.
 Dowdell. Simpson. Anderson and Denson, JJ., concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
P1NKERroN vs STATE.
Decided February 1st. 19o6)-(40 So.
 Rep. 224)

ND6ClOtu CDl Odi AoS' 1"NS'| Wy NN'
 Rep. 224)
 1. Homicide: Instructions; Issues; Manslaughter.-In a prosecution for murder where the evidence showed, for the state, a willful murder. and the defendants evidence tended to show that he did not do the killing, charges as to manslaughter were abstract and properly refused.
 2. Same; Reasonable Doubt; Malice. A charge which instructs the jury that if they have a reasonable doubt that defendant had malice in his heart when he fired the fatal shot, they could not convict him of murder in either de- gree, was misleading and properly re- fused.
 3. Criminal Law; Appeal; Harmless Error.--It was harmless error to re- fuse charges relative to murder in the first degree even If correct, where the jury returned verdict of murde in the second degree.
 Appeal from Gadsden City Court.
 Heard before Hon. John H. Disque
 Affirmed. Opinion by Anderson, J.
 Tyson. Dowdell and Simpson, JJ.' concur
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
CARPENTER vs.. sTIGGINs.

CARPENTEH, Vs.. SIIGGINS. Decided February IT, 1906.)-(40 So.
 Rep. 216.)
 Witness; Competency; Action by Transferee of Payee's Administrator.- Where the administrator of the payee of note transfers. such note to widow of payee, by endorsement, and she sues on same, the maker of the note is not a competent witness to testify to transaction with decedent claimed by the maker to be a payment of tho note. v !ts-f Appeal from Clarke Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. John c. Anderson. Affirmed. Opinion by Denson, J.
 Haralson,' Dowdell and Simpson, con cur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
HAYES ys. MARTIN.

Eiectment-(Decided February 17,
 1906.)-(40 So. Rep. 204.)
 Deeds; Requisites and Validity De- scription of Property.-Where' the tract of land was not less than ten acres in
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
NIxON et al V. FALLING.


 Bill to abate continuing Nuisance
 Decided February 1. 1906)-(40
 So. Rep. 21o)
 l. Appeal and Error; Failure to Give Supersedeas Bond-The failure os respondent to give a supersedeas bond, and the fact that he has satisfied the decree by a performance of Its manda- tory order, does not prevent his ap- peal from final decree granting com plainant the relief prayed.
 2. Same; Performance of Decree The performance of a mandatory decree is not such a voluntary satisfaction Of the judgment in such sense as to amount to waiver of the right of ap- peal.
 3. Nuisance; Abatement; Chancery Jurisdiction.-A court of equity has Jurisdiction to abate a continuing nui- sance by injunction.
 Appeal from Marshall Chancery Court Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Dowdell. J.
 Tyson, Simpson and Anderson. JJ, concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
School Engraving.

The Advertiser Engraving Company is prepared to do fine Copper-plate Engraving for use in School Annuals and College Year-Books. Prices quoted on application.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
DEASON Ns. FINDLEY, et al.

Action for Breach of Covenant Of Qulet
 Enjoyment-(Decided February l.
 1906D-(40 So. Rep. 220)
 1. Covenants; Covenants Running With the Land.--A covenant for Qulet enjoyment or warraty runs with the land into the hands of the assignee and heirs, and may be sued upon by the heir of assignee in possession when 1t is broken.
 2. Same What Covenants Run With the Land.-There must be a privtty or estate between the covenanting parties for a covenant to run with the land; and tD order for the covenant to pass
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19

area, the angle between the two sides of the triangle and the courses and distance Of the two sides of the train gle are given, and the points on the triangle from and to which the hypo- thenuse was to run are given:' such a description was sufficiently definite and certain to admit the deed as evidence. and for the admission of extrinsic evil dence to identify the subject matter of the same. str
 Appeal from Birmingham City Court.
 Heard before Hon. c. W. Ferguson.
 Reversed and Remanded. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Tyson, Dowdell and simpson. JJ.. con- cur.
 RYAN vs. .sHANELFELT. ct al:
 Decided January 30, 1sos')-(4o So.
 1. Evidence: Secondary Evidence: Mortgages.--When the evidence show ed that a certain person had the origi- nal mortgages and delivered them to his attorney. who testified that the papers were delivered to him and were in his offic when 1t was destroyed by fire, and that he had made diligent search for them without finding them. this was sufficient predicate for the admission of certified copies of the record of such mortgages.
 2. Witnesses Competency; Transac- tions with Decedent.-Where dece- dents estate was involved in the lit- gation testimony of witnesses interest ed in the litigation as to transactions with decedent was incompetent.
 8. Mortgages; Sales; Separate Sales. Where several mortgages were to be foreclosed and they conveyed difrerenr tracts of land. a separate sale was proper and necessary.
 Appeal from Morgan Chancery Court
 sd hafnTa H. SimnSOn.
 sRehearing denied January 30, 1s0s Reversed. Opinion by Anderson, J. Mcclellan. c. J., and Tyson and Simpson, JJ.. concur. WALLACE ct al. .vs., MARKSTEIN. Bill to redeem from sale to inforce vendors lien by purchaser after sale.--(Decided February IT. 1906.S GAO So. Rep. 2o1.)
 !. Vendor and Purchaser; Right to redeem by purchaser after sale.-The right to redeem after sale Is person. al right, which cannot be transferred. except before sale; And the right of redemption as vendee. under Section | 3505 Code 1896. extends only to those l who have purchased the equity of de- demption before a sale from which re- demption Is sought.
 g. Headings; Demurrer; General De- murrer.-Under Code 1896. Section 3303. none but special demurrers, as to mat ter of substance, are permitted, but in | the case at bar, demurrers which are grounded upon the statement that the | allegations of the bill show no suffi- cient rights in the complainant to ex- | ercise such right of redemption as | claimed in the bill, and, that the ale | gations of the bill do not sufficiently | show that the complainant Is entitled l to exercise such right of redemption in the manner and form as alleged. all l though general in form, are sufficient, and clearly point out that complain ant occupies neither relation mention 1 ed in tho statute. Appeal from Randolph Chancery | Court.
 Heard before Hon. W. w. Whiteside. l Reversed and demanded. Opinion by | Simpson, J.
 | Haralson, Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., | concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
sLoss-sHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON

SLosS- SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON
 CO., vs HOLLOWAY. Action for Damages for Injury to Em-
 ploye.-(Decided June 30, 19o5.) s--
 GAO So. Rep. 211.)
 i. Appeal: Questions Reviewable; Pleadings.--This court will not review the objections to the sufflciency of the murrer when no judgment on the de- murrer is shown.
 2. Master and Servant; Injury to Servant; Negligence; Duty of Master: DeIegation.-Under subdivision of Section 1749 of Code 1896. where a su- perintendent, intrusted by defendant with superintendence of the construc- ton of a scaffold, failed personally to overlook the work and inspect the scaf- fold, which fell by reason of the negh- gence of the men constructing 1t and injured one of defendants employees. defendant was liable for injuries caus- ed thereby, although the superinten- dent selected competent men, provided proper material, and gave proper in- structions as to the erection of the scaffold; the duty to provide safe places, plants. etc, being a non-dele- gable duty, the servant becomes the agent of the master
 3. Death; Damages: Deduction.- The fact that intestate had saved mon- ey which his widow then had would not be material, as that fact would not avail to reduce the amount of recov- cry.
 Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. E. B. Almon.
 Rehearing denied January 30. 1906.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Tyson. J.
 Mcclellan, c. J. Anderson and Dem son, JJ.. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
JOHNSON vs. OLDHAM, ct al.

(Decided February IT, 1906)-(40 So.
 Rep. 213)
 1. Injunction; Execution on Judg- ment; Grounds; Legal Defenses to Ori- ginal Action.-If the defendant in an ejectment suit had, at the commence ment of the suit, title by adverse pos session, this was a complete defense to that action. but is not grounds for equitable interference by injunction af- ter judgment in the ejectment suit.
 g. Same; Laches.-If the purchaser at administration sale knew of defects in the proceedings which affected the title attempted to be conveyed at sale. and for fifty years took no steps to perfect title or acquire good title. he was guilty of such laches as would prevent his vendee from obtaining in junctive relief against a judgment in eiectment at the suit of intestate's s heirs.
 Appeal from Shelby Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. R. B. Kelly.
 Affirmed Opinion by Denson, J.
 Haralson, Dowdell, Simpson and An derson. JJ.. concur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19

to the grantee of the covenantee the covenant must relate to the interest created or conveyed.
 8. Same; Presumption of Deed.-Al- though deed may be presumed for the purpose of quieting one in possession of land Lnde some circumstances: yet an instrument not under seal cannot be presumed to be deed for the pur- pose of supporting an action for breach of covenant theeron, or an action for breach of covenant contained in a deed further back in the chain of title.
 Appeal from Tuscaloosa Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. A. H. Benners
 Affirmed. Opinion by Anderson. J.
 Tyson, Dowdell and Simpson, JJ., con- cur.
The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-04-19
CITY COUNCIL OF MONTGOMERY vs
 WEST

WEST. Decided February IT, 19o6.)-40 So.
 Rep. 215)
 l. Injunction; Subject of Relief; Violation of City Ordinance.-Although a city ordinance is void, and its at- tempted enforcement will result in multiplicity of suits. and prosecution hereunder will work irreparable in- jury injunction will not lie to restrain such threatened prosecution, nor do the averments of a multiplicity of suits or irreparable injury give equity jurtsdic- ton to entertain such bill.
 Appeal from Montgomery Chancery Court
 Heard before Hon. W. L. Parks. Reversed, Rendered and Remanded. Opinion by Haralson, J.
 Dowdell. Simpson. Anderson and Den- son. JJ., concur.