The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1911-05-30
OPINIONS SUPREME COURT

All ORAL ARGUMENTS CON
r1rDED FOR SPRING TERM,
t91f-SUPHEME COURT WILL
PROBABLY ADJOURN THE LAT
TER PART OF THIS WEEK
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN YES
TERDAY.
All oral arguments were concluded
:, me Supreme court this week and
~. few remaining opinions Will prob
ahfv be handed down on either We'd
-esdav or Thursday Of this week. The
no,rt will then adjourn for it's sum-
mar vacation. Among the opinions
nhich have not yet been handed own
a. the important case of City Of Colds
Loro ys. Atlantic Coast Line railway,
which relates to the right OF q town
20 make ordinances requiring railroad
tracks to be lowered to comply with
the level Of streets through which the
tracks run.
4 number of cases were decided yes
44rdav but none Of them are of any
especial public Importance. The cases
decided and a synopsis of the opinions
are as follows:
state Ys. Smith and Lilies, ok county,
Few trial. Walker J.
/ Criminal action for SANDER Of an
Innocent woman, under revised section
$3.50. The trial judge correctly charg-
cd the jury in regard to what Is meant
by an innocent and then
further charged the jury that there
was a presumption Of law in favor Of
the innocence and virtue OF the pros
~e,utrix, until the contrary appears.
Held: that the i%nnocency of the Wo-
man is one of the most essential ele-
lnents of this crime and the State must
Ah:~ ~1-nS
ent Of the crime, affirming State VS.
Mcdaniel, 81, N. c., sos.
tanning VS.. Telegraph Co., Swain
county, new trial. Walker j.
/. Suit for damages for mem
tai anguish for failure to promptly de-
guested the trial judge to instruct the
jury that the burden was upon the
plaintiff to show the alleged negli-
gence and that 1t was the prox1mate
cause of his injury. This the trial
Judge, probably through ~inadvertence,
failed to do. Held: hat it was error
10 fail to give the instruction re-
UUeSted.
Stewart V. Stewart. Macon County.
Nc Error. Clark, G.. j.
l. Issue Of deviSaVit vel non. A
witness testified regarding the men
tai condition Of the testator that The
still retained his mental faculties to
~'t io"t. IAA>Sp was n "
this statement. Held. that it was COM
petent, affirming Smith V. Smith. III
\. c., 326.
,. A witness, on cross-examination,
vas asked if he had not gone to the
home of the testator and removed
some of its contents to the house of
the caveator. Held. that this was
competent to impeach the witness and
tended to show his feelings in the
casa orI n &o4N- H.
father and son which might have in
tUenced the testator in the disposal
81 his property.
3. A witness was asked what infu-
fnce Casey Stewart seemed to exert
over the testator, and answered that
he seemed to be under her thumb a
good deal" The trial judge excluded
the question and answe as being
leading and also incompetent as the
expression Of a conclusion. Held, that
The condition of the testator's min
was q matter as to which any one
having opportunity for observation
can testify, subject to crOss-examina-
ton to test the value of the opinion
expressed by the witness, but whether
there was undue influence is a ques-
Ton for the jury to decide from the
Lacts n circumstances placed in evi-
d'nce. The question and answer prop
ely excluded.
Wright Y. Railway. Buncombe Coun-
~. Affirmed. Allen, j.
/. Suit for damages for personal in
Jury. Held, that the defendant must
plead c~ontributory negligence, and
mat the plea is not good when it does
no more than deny the negligence OF
me defendant and allege that the
plaintiff was injured by his own neg
hSerce. Rev, sec. 4S3. But contrib
utory negligence is sufficiently plead
60 in this case. On a motion for
Judgment Of %nonsuit, the defendant
may avail himself of the plea of con
tlbutory negligence if contributory
negligence is shown by the evidence OF
the plaintiff.
:. The evidence disclosed that {
person in the buggy with plaintiff told