be and act as registrars of election for the fall election in 1898,-county, state, and national. The sheriff of Mecklenburg county will serve this order upon the defendants and the parties herein appointed registrars immediately upon the receipt of the same, and make due return to me as to the manner and time of serving the same. The clerk of the supreme court will at once issue this order to said sheriff. The defendants are adjudged to pay the costs of this proceeding, to be taxed by the clerk of the supreme court of North Carolina. This September 28, 1898. NICHOLSON v. COMMISSIONERS OF DARE COUNTY. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Oct. 11, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Currituck county; Norwood, Judge. Action by Lovey W. Nicholson against the commissioners of Dare county. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed. E. F. Aydlett, for appellants. W. B. Shaw, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. FURCHES, J. (dissenting). This case is here for the fourth time. A majority of the court have affirmed the judgment appealed from by a "per curiam" order. I cannot concur in this summary manner of disposing of this appeal. In my opinion, it overrules all three of the former opinions of this court, without giving any reason for doing so. If these opinions are erroneous and are overruled, the court should have said so. I do not propose to discuss the case in this opinion. Were I to do so, it would be but to repeat the arguments contained in the opinions rendered upon former hearings, and reported in 118 N. C. 30, 24 S. E. 728; 119 N. C. 20. 25 S. E. 719; and 121 N. C. 27, 27 S. E. 996. NORRIS ▾. WILMINGTON & W. R. CO. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Feb. 23, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Pitt county. John L. Bridgers, R. O. Burton, and B. M. Gatling, for appellant. Bond & Fleming, for appellee. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. PARKER et al. v. ALBERTSON. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Duplin county. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the seventeenth rule. POLLOCK v. WADSWORTH. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Jones county. No opinion. Appeal dismissed pursuant to the thirtieth rule. POPE et al. v. COATES et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Harnett county. No opinion. New trial granted. of North Carolina. March 2, 1898.) SLATER et al. v. STEWART et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Oct. 25, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Edgecombe county; Brown, Judge. Action by W. L. Slater and others against J. P. Stewart and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed. H. G. Connor, for appellants. Jacob Battle, for appellees. FURCHES, J. The facts governing this case are substantially the same as those in the case of Mahoney v. Stewart (at this term) 31 S. E. 384. This was admitted by counsel on the argument here. This being so, this case is governed by that case. Therefore the injunction and order appointing a receiver are continued as to the defendant Stewart, but are dissolved and vacated as to the administrator, Braswell, and the administration of his intestate's estate. The judgment appealed from will be so modified, but the plaintiffs will be taxed with the costs of this appeal. Modified and affirmed. SMITH V. MONTAGUE. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 2, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Wake county. M. A. Bledsoe, for appellant. Jones & Boykin, for appellee. No opinion. Action dismissed on motion of defendant on the ground that complaint does not state a cause of action. SORRELL v. STINSON et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 23, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Moore county. Womack & Hayes, A. P. Gilbert, and W. E. Murchison, for appellants. Douglass & Spencer and Black & Adams, for appellee. No opinion. Appeal dismissed. STAGG V. EINSTEIN et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Lenoir county. No opinion. Dismissed pursuant to the seventeenth rule. STATE v. AUSTIN. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Dec. 13, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Union county; Green, Judge. J. E. Austin was convicted of crime, and appealed. Error. Osborne, Maxwell & Keerans, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State. PER CURIAM. This case is governed by the foregoing opinion (31 S. E. 731), and is a part of the same transaction; the only difference being that here the landlord was obstructed in taking possession of another basket of cotton by the daughter of Henry Keziah sitting down on it. According to her testimony, the defendant told her to get up, and threatened to hit her with a stick which he had in his hand if she did not, and she jumped up and ran off. The defendant denies threatening to strike her with the stick. But, in any aspect of the evidence, Henry Keziah and his force of hands were on the old man's land, without a shadow of right, forcibly taking possession of the crop to which they had no legal claim, and after being forbidden the premises. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to protect his possession. The court should have instructed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Error. STATE v. BUTNER. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Yancey county. No opinion. Appeal dismissed pursuant to the sixteenth and thirtieth rules. STATE v. CAIN. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Catawba county. No opinion. Dismissed on motion of attorney general. STATE v. CASE et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Transylvania county. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. STATE v. COLLINS. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Onslow county. No opinion. Appeal dismissed pursuant to the sixteenth and thirtieth rules. STATE v. DICKSON et al. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Burke county. No opinion. Appeal dismissed on motion of attorney general. STATE v. HAGAMAN. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Caldwell county. No opinion. New trial ordered. STATE v. HANNA. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 15, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, New Hanover county. John D. Bellamy, for appellant. Zeb. V. Walser, Atty. Gen., and Brown Shepherd, for the State. No opinion. Dismissed. STATE v. PEGRAM. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Feb. 15, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Warren county. Cook & Green, for appellant. Zeb. V. Walser, Atty. Gen., for the State. No opinion. Appeal dismissed by consent. STATE v. POTSELL. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 26, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Buncombe county. Zeb. V. Walser, Atty. Gen., for the State. H. B. Stevens, for appellant. No opinion. Appeal dismissed under ruling in State v. Ray, 122 N. C. 1097, 29 S. E. 61. STATE v. RUMBOUGH. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 26, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Madison county. E. C. Smith, for appellant. Zeb. V. Walser, Atty. Gen., and J. M. Gudger, for appellee. No opinion. Appeal dismissed under ruling in State v. Ray, 122 N. C. 1097, 29 S. E. 61. STATE v. SCRONCE. (Supreme Court of North Carolina. Sept. Term, 1897.) Appeal from superior court, Lincoln county. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. STATE ex rel. ROGERS et al. v. ELLIOT et al., Board of Com'rs. (Supreme Court of South Carolina. Jan. 4, 1899.) Mandamus on relation of L. B. Rogers and another against B. F. Elliot and others as board of commissioners of election for Marion county. Heard on return to writ. Dismissed. T. W. Bonchier. J. H. Hudson, and Knox Livingston, for interveners. Geo. G. Thompson, for relators. W. J. Montgomery, J. W. Johnson, H. Woods, and R. W. Shand, for respondents. McIVER, C. J. It having been stated in the return filed by the respondents in this case that an election on the question of forming the proposed new county of Pee Dee out of a portion of Marion county was held on January 12, 1897, and that the result of such election was tabulated and certified by the commissioners of election for Marion county to the secretary of state, and by such officer was transmitted to the general assembly in 1897, and that the result of the election so tabulated, certified, and transmitted showed that at such election the proposed new county did not receive a two-thirds affirmative vote; and these facts being now admitted by the relators to be true; and the constitutional court, composed of all the justices of the supreme court and seven of the circuit judges, in the case of Segars v. Parrott, having held, by the opinion of a majority of said court, filed December 3, 1898 (31 S. E. 677), that, in determining the result of an election on the question of forming a new county, the general assembly has no judicial powers, nor is invested with any power to determine the result of such an election, and "has no right either to set aside or disregard such return," to wit, the return by the commissioners of election for the old county in which such election was held,-it is, by the consent of all the counsel in this case, ordered that the said return of respondents be sustained, and the proceedings dismissed, upon the aforesaid legal ground, but without reference to any questions of fact raised in said petition and return, save as hereinbefore stated. FRANKLIN COUNTY et al. v. SAUNDERS. (Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Sept. 15, 1898.) Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county. Ejectment by Franklin county and others against E. W. Saunders. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed. L. W. Anderson, for appellants. E. W. Saunders, for appellee. BUCHANAN, J. This case was heard in this court with the case of Franklin Co. v. Gills, 31 S. E. 507. The question involved in each case is the same, and was decided in the circuit court in the same way. For reasons stated in writing and filed with the record in that case, the judgment of the circuit court was reversed. For like reasons the judgment in this case must be reversed, the verdict of the jury set aside, and the cause remanded for a new trial. CARDWELL, J., did not sit. END OF CASES IN VOL. 81. INDEX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. Sufficiency of acknowledgment taken by gran- 1. Another action pending. § 2. Death of party and revival of ac- ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. See "Disorderly Conduct." ABUTTING OWNERS. Assessments for expenses of public improve- ACCEPTANCE. Of goods sold as avoiding statute of frauds, see Of offer or proposal, see "Contracts," § 1. ACCOMPLICES. In criminal proceedings, see "Seduction," § 2. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION. Where an accord and satisfaction was not ACCOUNT. Accounting between partners, see "Partner- by executor or administrator, see "Execu- by guardian of infant, see "Guardian and § 1. Proceedings and relief. On accounting. the proper procedure is for § 2. Operation and effect of accounting. A certificate of acknowledgment containing ACTION. Accrual, see "Limitation of Actions." Set-off, see "Set-Off and Counterclaim." See "Partnership," § 4. Actions by or against particular classes of See "Carriers," § 1; "Corporations." §§ 3, 4; Particular causes or grounds of action. of covenant, see "Covenants," § 1. Particular forms of action. Particular forms of special relief. Alimony, see "Divorce," § 3. Dissolution of partnership, see "Partnership," Reformation of written instruments, see "Ref- (1009) |