The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-03-09
WORK Of THE SUPREME COURT
Opinions in Number Of Cases
Handed Down
NEXT. 9TH DISTRICT APPEALS
Case Of State vs.. Lilhston VIII be
Argued Next Week-Cases From the
Fifth District Now Being Presented
to the Court
Especial to The Messenger.)

RdIclSn, n. ". MdTCn 1.-lue eu-
preme court of North Carolina handed
down the following opinions:
Norcum VS.. Savage, from Gates, no
error; Aston VS.. Connell, from War
rem, affirmed; Sledge vs. Lumber Com
pany, from Halifax, new trial; Hosie-
ry Mills VS.. Cotton Mills, from Hall
fax, affirmed; State VS.. Atlantic and
North Carolina Railroad, from Craven,
no error; Daugherty VS.. Taylor, from
Craven, no error; Pincus vs. Railroad,
from Edgecombe, new trial; Fuller VS..
Railroad, from Franklin, new trial
Tanner VS.. Hitch, from EdgecOmbe,
new trial; Ellis VS.. Harrison, from
Franklin, affirmed; Lumber Company
VS.. Corey, from Martin, affirmed; With
erington VS.. Herring, from Wilson. no
error; States VS.. Durham, from Polk,
no error; McAfee VS.. Gregg, from Bun
combe, reversed.
Appeals from the sixth district will
be called next Tuesday, March II, as
follows: State VS.. Baskerville, State
vs. Wheeler, State VS.. Lilliston, Beas-
ley vs. Surles, Claus VS.. Lee, Stewart
VS. Railway, Nelson VS.. Hunter,
Hughes VS.. Knott, Edwards VS.. Colds
boro, and Cameron VS.. Hicks.
The Lilliston case is that of Robert
Lilliston, of Norfolk, Va. who was
tried for the alleged killing Of
Charles G. Smith, in the Raleigh union
railway station, while the state fair
was in progress last October, Lilliston
having been sentenced by Judge G. w.
Ward to a IA year term of imprison-
ment.
In the supreme court of North Car
olina, now hearing, the cases from
the fifth district, the following were
argued by Attorney General Gilmer:
State VS.. .Worley, in which the three
Worleys were indicted for the killing
of Warters, Lenoir county. Tom Wor-
J ley was convicted and sentenced to
Is years in the states prison, for
| murder in the second degree, while
Clem Worley was convicted of man
slaughter and sentenced to two years,
Attorneys for the plaintiff filed brief
and supplementary brief. State VS..
Hill, from Onslow, indictment was for
| assault and battery, with a deadly
| weapon upon Jarman. The judge in
| the lower court charged the jury that
the defendant was guilty upon his own
showing. Counsel cOntended that 1t
was a question of self-defense, which
grew out of the testimony of the de-
fendant, which should have been sub
mitted to the jury. State VS.. Piner
from Pender; indictment was for re-
failing spirituous liquors. Defendant
contended under statute in the code
passed for the purpose of encouraging
the manufacture of domestic wines he
was authorized to sell wine OF his
own manufacture in quantities more
than a gallon, not to be drunk on the
premises where sold. The state con-
tended that this statute had been re-
pealed by a special prohibition law
passed by the county of Pender IN
1901, and that the provisions Of the
Watts law did not apply, for by section
10 Of the said act it was not applica-
BILE where special statutes existed. The
| defendant also raised the point that a
| special statute existed. The defendan.
also raised the point that special YER
dict did not find the wine intoxicating
The state insisted that the court will
take judicial notice that such wine
is an intoxicant and the finding was
not necessary. States VS.. Betsey Rob
erson, a colored woman, from Samp-
son county, was continued by consen;
of counsel that defendant might per-
feet record and a motion was made
for a writ of certiori to complete the
record. This case may prove an inter
est1ng one as it involves the act o.
1905 making it misdemeanor for a
tenant under certain conditions tc
abandon the crop of landlord afte!
having agreed: to cultivate the same
The statute affects number of coun-
ties in eastern North Carolina.