The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1911-06-06

insolyent as in this case. the solicitor
shall receive half fees. except tnat Ior
convictions in capital felonies, forgery.
perjury. and conspiracy. Wnen thes
shall receive full fees. Held, that the
prisoners being insolvent and murder
In the second degree not being a capt.
| IA, ofense, the solicitor is entitled to
only half fees, $40, in each case. Since
the division of the crime OF muroer
| into two degrees the solicitors 1eeS
have remained ana the
| true intent and meaning OF n law Is
| that the solicitor shall receive $40 for
a conviction in a capital felony and
| where he indictS and arraignS the
| prisoner for the capital felony and the
jury returns a verdict Of murder In
the second degree or granddaughter,
the solicitor is entitled to SO, only.
Ford vs.. Lumber Co., Haywood County
Affirmed. Brown, j.
1. Petition for removal to circuit
court of the United States. The sum-
mons was returnable September Term,
1910. at which term an order was
made in the cause that the plaintiff be
allowed forty days to file complaint
and defendant forty days thereafter to
file answe Held that the defendant
not excepting to this order and not
moving to dismiss the action LOT
failure to file complaint, it valves It's
rights, if it had any, for removal.
Henry VS.. Hiniard, Haywood County.
Reversed. Allen, J.
L. Hilliardr the surviving executor
Of Mr.. Love contracted with Mr..
Struggled that he would sell him q
certain tract Of land. Struggled to
survey all the Love land. ETC., as pay
ment. After Mr.. billiards. death this
parol contract was confirmed by the
trustee, r. D. Gilmer. The power to
IN n ln tho nnntranf on6 that tho MIR.
chase price was paid is admitted. The
trial judge held that Struggled was
entitled to recover payment for his
services, but was not entitled to a
leel. Held, that the vendee under a
parol contract, in regard to land, after
the payment of the purchase price,
when the statute Of frauds is MOI
pleaded, the contract is not denied,
and there is no objection to the evil
dence, can compel the execution of a
deed to him. A deed will be executed
to Mr.. Struggled.
Smith VS.. Timber Co., Duplin County.
Reversed. Hoke, J..
1. Land was devised to six children
Crder the provision that if any dying
without leaving lawful issue of his or
her body surviving or to be born
within the period of CESSATION after
DEATH" then the land to descend to the
survivors. In a partition proceedings
the land was divided between the six
children One child contracted to sell
her part to the lumber company and
warrant the title. h lumber COM
pany refused to accept the deed al
eglng that she did not have a fee
simple title. Held, that by death in
the limitation in the will is meant the
death OF the child and not the death
or the teStatOr. Each child received
a fee simple title defeasible as to each
on an ynnnrfnir o-o-% do - -
leaving lawful issue surviving, ETC."
The plaintiff cannot convey an abso-
lutte fee simple title and the Judgment
OF the lower court is reversed.
Cheese - vs.. Pipkin, Wayne County,
Reversed. Hoke, j.
l. Suit originally brought for $199
before a justice of the peace for money
due on a contract. Defendant loaded
q counterclaim as defense and justice
Of the peace gave judgment for S38,
In defendants favor. On appeal in
the Superior Court the jury found that
plaintiff was entitled to $19s on the
contract and found the defendants
eounterclaim was 1910. AS the com
terclaim was for over 5000. and was
not RENTED above $500, the trial
Judge set 1t aside for lack of jurisdic-
tlon and gave judgment for the plain
TIL for $199 and costs. Held. that
"heh suit IS brought in the justice of
peace's court, defendant may set I'D a
counterclaim regardless Of the amount
OF such counterclaim and need not re-
init the amount above 1900. This is
Set up entirely as a defense to defeat
recovery and judgment nay be given
that go without day and
recover costs.
IaDe VS.. Railway. Buncombe County
Affirmed. Brown. j..
l: Suit for damages for negligent
killing Judgment of non suit at con-
ciuslon of evidence. Sgmon, plaintiffs
lntestate, was a brakeman and as train
was backing into siding with loaded
ears. fell between the cars and his
leg was cut off by the wheel of the
car, and later died from the accident.
1t was not commended that the en-
Sineer- saw him fall and there is no
surlcleht evidence that the engineer
was negligent in any duty The train