The farmer and mechanic., 1915-03-23
bright LEAF TOBACCO BELT
MOST PROSPEROUS IN SOUTH
Business ''Excellent" in Piedmont Section, But
"Superior" Is What Eastern Carolina Coun-
ties Claim for Their Fair egion---Farmers
Are Wise and Will Not Overdo Things

and in the coming decade they will ser
the manufacturers and merchants an
excellent example by becoming i'm
mensely wealthy as a whole. WITH
every in individual IN the well-to-
do class. They are going to produce
their foodstuffS and some to spare.
and depend upon the golden lea1 As
| a precious means for easy money.
reason Of any structure of a railroad
| of a permanent nature
| Applying this principle, Justice Al
| len states that the plaintiff testified
| hat the substantial injury was IN
1908 one witness Allen testified that
the road was constructed in 1902 or
| 1908 and another witness testified Il
! think the road was built in 1906"
This at most only furnishes con-
f1ct in the evidence which have to be
settled by the jury New trial.
| Another Action For POnding Water.
Brinkley VS.. N. S. r. R. and Town
| of Greenville is an action to recover
damages by ponding water by lack of
| sufficient drain pipes where the walls
Of building gave way and cracked
! and soaked basement used for order
| ing and grading tobacco. Jury an
| sWered issues in favor Of defendant.
Justice Allen takes up the assign
ments OF error seriatim. He states.
THE first assignment Of error cannot
be sustained because the Record failk
to disclose what would have been the
answer of witness or what the plain
; tiff expected to prove"
| AS to objections to questions and
answers regarding Easements in a low
: damp place, he states, ''in the absence
of any evidence, an intelligent jury
| would know that a basement in q
damp soggy place without concrete
floor would not be free from the dan
/ | ger of seepage. And again, the Rec
| ord shows that there was really no dis
pute as to this fact"
He states that the objection to the
question asked a witness if in his opin-
, | ion, the drain was sufficient to carry
6 | off the water. being answered by the
! witness, II don't know who put in the
: | second pipe, whether the Railroad OF
: Town" was without merit as the an
n | swer does not affect the controversy
r The minutes Of the Board Of AL
s dermen showing appointment of enei
: "eers to construct drainage for tn,
r Town. is held by Justice Allen to b,
: competent. upon the question Of tn,
4 exercise Of due care
G. several other exceptions to Ques
e tlons and answers regarding the ca
e pacity of the drains to carry off ordi
II nary rains are held without merit
y as there is no evidence upon the par
l
3 injured by ordinary rains or that tn
It pipes would not carry off such rains.
At Justice Allen quotes the charge yer
IS fully and states that there was no er
,r ror therein as the Trial Judge charge
"a it was the duty Of the Town to eS
ar erclSe ordinary care in prOvidin
a drainage and that it was liable fc
IN negligence in doing so. No error
1e Action To Recover Personal Propert,
re Leffel & Co. VS.. Hall. is an actio
a 10 recover engine and boiler sold
in defendant and for which defenda1
I'd gave his note for 1913. 1t was agree
in that the title to this property shou]
ot remain in plaintiff until paid for an
Sc that the engine formerly owned I
n the defendant should be shipped
all plaintif and ii a price could be agree
Lr- upon, the same should be credite
upon the note. The price could n
he agreed upon. The Trial Judge !,
nd structed jury if they believed eviden
he to answer issues in favor of plai
en- tiff. Judgment for plaintiff
w. Justice Walker states there was !
in error In this instruction, as 1--WE fl,
De- IT expressly stated in the case that Il
rn, property was shipped to the plai
tic. tiffs subject to their inspection and
;ed the parties could agree upon the prit
sh- 1T should be credited upon the no
ar. for 1918. 80 1t was left to +
ip- plaintiff to fix the price that tn
M would be willing to pay, and the
nty was no promise by them to pay
the value as fixed by the defendant
md any one else, OF Dy the jury.
re- Inc mlndS OF the parties must me
ons | upon one ana the same thing, a
ar tne meaning or their contract must
go ascertained from its words. and t
yet. mutual agreement of the parties. a
the not merely from the intention, bel
,ow or UNDERSTANDING of one of the
ver 'Inere IS suggestion in defer
ants brief Of fraud on the part of
ter plaintiffs but we have failed 10 Il
ore any evidence Of it in the case
I'M error.