The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-10-11

riches to be measured in the cab at
tho buyers furnaces. and under this
contract the buyer received the coal
at its shed IS or 100 yards from It's
furnaces. measuring II and receipt;nE
for It at such sheds: tine place OF de-
livery or receipt was the place OF
TO ascertain the qualt"
Of coal. and not the furnace to which!
the coal was transported by means %
the cabs into which II was loaded ct
the shed.
Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court
Heart before Hon. John Pelham.
Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson. J.
Tyson. Anderson ard benson. j.,
concur.
WARE v. THE STATE.
Murder.-(Decided May nth. 1906
II So. Rep. 1917
1. Homicide: trial; Instructions; de-
grees-Where 1t appeors without con
fiict, from the evidence, that the killing
was intentional and not lawful.
charge as to Involuntary manslaughter
vas abstract and properly refused.
Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court
Heard before Hon. s. l.. Weaver.
Alarmed. Opinion by HARRISON. J.
welkiey. c. j.. Dowdell and benson.
j., concur.
STATE ex rel FREDERICK. ct al y.
BRODlE.
Quo Observation-Disclosures May 10th,
19Os--41 so Req. 1907.
l. Statutes; enactments. evidence
Evidence outside the journals Of the
Legislature 10 not admissible for the
purpose Of sustaining or defeating the
enactment Of a statute.
2. Same; local laws: notice Of appli-
cation for passage: contents; sufficien-
oy.-Where the journals of the House
and Senate show no more than the af.
fidavit Of a publisher of d newspaper
that a notice containing the substan ~
Of the proposed act vas published in
his newspaper, but not setting fortf,
the contents of the notice. this is not a
compliance with Section 1O6 of the c. n
stitution Of 1901. the AFFIDAVIT being
the mere conclusion OF the affant and
not proof Of such notice.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.
Heard before Hon. A. A. Coleman.
Affirmed. Opinion by HARRISON. J.
Weakley. c. J.. Dowdell and benson,
H., concur.
WARE. EFT AL. vs.. MOBILE COUNTY
Action to Recover License Tax.-(De-
s ss.' May s. 1906 " So Rep
License: dealers In futures; in
terstate commercial broker. engag-
ed In buying and selling cotton and
grain for future delivery. taking the
orders to be executed on the New
York or New Orleans Exchange. the
customer. at the time. depositing with
the broker. or his agent. money as
margins to protect the broker against
diverse to the customer; the broker
furnishing the customer with a men,
orandum reserving the right to- close
the transaction when the margin de-
posted was exhausted, and to settle
the contract in accordance with the
customs Of the exchange on which the
order was placed. the order being
the brokers' office In New York or
New Orleans. Is subject to the tax
imposed by General Acts 1908. p. 207,
imposing a tax upon the business Of
buying and selling futures for spec
rIatio~: and the contract SO entered
into was not interstate commerce
oaL,e.-l acre Oeing no st pula-
ton in the contract requiring the
seller to ship the cotton from any CIV
en- point. shipments made under the
contract from without the State to
point therein were not renderedin-
terstate commerce by the contract but
by the subsequent independent act OF
the seller, and the shipment in that
event would not become interstate
commerce until the cotton had COM
menced to be transported so the fact
that the contract provided for it's dis
charge by a shipment of cotton. in
some instances. Is Of no consequence.
Appeal from Mobile Circuit court.
Heard before Hon. Samuel b.
Browne.
Affirmed Opinion by Tyson. J.
Weakley. J. Simpson and An
derson. u. concur
ALLEN VS. ALsToN. AS Elk
Assumpsit.-(Decided May 9, 1905. ~
So. Rep. l5sD
Attorney and client; money COL
lected: action: parties; plaintiff. real
party in interest,-Where the facts
stated in the complaint snow an i'm
piled contract to pay over money col
lected by an attorney for a client. the
case is brought within the influence
should have been brought in the name
Of the real party in interest.
2. Appeal: review; questions for
review; bill of exceptions.-Motion 10
strike pleas. and parts thereof. and
the courts action thereon must be
shown by the bill of exceptions. else
they cannot be considered on appeal.
o. SOTpOTdtlOnSs assignment OF
claim; sufficiency.-In the absence OF
evidence showing that the vicc-presi-
dent Of a corporation was authorized
to execute the assignment of a claim
such assignment executed by the vice.
president, to which the corporate seal
was not attached was inadmissible in
evidence in an action on the claim,
especially where such assignment re-
cites that the vice-president was au-
thorized to execute 1t Fin the name and
under the seal"
Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court
Heard before Hon. D. w. Speake.
Affirmed Opinion by Anderson, ].
HARRISON, Dowdell and benson. JJ
concur.
STALLWORTH VS.. THE STATE.
Murder.-(Decided May 10, 1906. Al
So. Req. 184.)
/. Criminal law; continuance: alb
sent witness: showing; discretion
abuse The defendant applied for a
continuance on account of an absent
witness: the court required a show
ing to be made as to what the wit
ness would testify: the state admit
ted that the witness would testify to
such facts II present (subject to le-
gal exceptions). and the court re-
quired the defendant to go to trial;
held not an abuse OF discretion.
Q Same: evidence; Identification of