Volume 79 — Mississippi Reports

Feom the chancery court of Franklin county. HoN. Claude Pusttard, Chancellor. Bunckley, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Jones and others, appellees, were defendants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of Scott county. HoN. John R. Enochs, Judge. For a previous report of the case, see Ellerbe v. State, 75 Miss., 522. Appellant, Ellerbe, was indicted for the murder of one J. P. Steele at the April, 1897, term of the circuit court of Lauderdale county. A change of venue was granted, and the cause removed to the circuit court of Scott county, where a trial was had.

From the chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Nathan C. Hill, Chancellor. Mrs. Inge, appellant, was the complainant in the court below ; the building and loan association, appellee, was defendant there.

From the circuit court of Oktibbeha county. HoN. Eugene O. Sykes, Judge. Shaw, the appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of a homicide, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case. What does the constitution mean when it says that the accused shall be heard by himself or counsel, or both? Const. 1890, § 26.

From, the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Guión Q. Hall, Judge. Held: not in all cases per se negligence to attempt to alight from or board a moving train. ‘ ‘ If one is, by the wrongful act of the carrier, placed in a position where, under a sudden impulse to save himself from serious inconvenience, he attempts to alight from a moving train, where the danger is not imminent, and where persons of…

Feom the circuit court of the first district, Hinds county. Hon. L. Brame, Special Judge. Hall, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the State, appellee, was defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The question presented is whether under § 4248 of the code of 1892 a suit may be brought on this claim against the state.

From the circuit court of Bolivar county. HoN. Frank E. LaNKIN, Judge. Jackson, the appellant, was indicted by the grand jury of Tunica county for the murder of one Ernest Mathews; on defendant’s application, the venue was changed to the circuit court of Bolivar county. Defendant was there tried, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, from which conviction and sentence he appealed to the supreme court.

Fuom the circuit court of, second district, Coahoma county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, Judge. Williams, appellant, was plaintiff, and Stewart, executor, was defendant, in the court below. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court, second district, of Coahoma county. HoN. Frank A. MONTGOMERY, Judge. Held: and seeks to obtain a part of said cotton at a different price from that shown by the written agreement, which but demonstrates the wisdom of the rule that the written agreement must stand or fall, as to its terms and conditions, upon its face, without the aid of extrinsic or oral testimony to add to or take from its terms.

From tbe circuit court of DeSoto county. HoN. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Filmer, tbe appellee, was plaintiff, and McDugle, appellant, was defendant in tbe court below. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

From the chancery court of Lowndes county. Hon. Adam M. Byrd, Chancellor. Jenkins, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; White and others, appellants, were defendants there. The complainant claimed to own an undivided one-half interest in the lands in controversy by virtue of a purchase at a sale made in 1898, by a substituted trustee, under two deeds of trust, executed in March, 1886, and March, 1892, respectively.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank A. Montgomery, Judge. Johnson, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the telegraph company, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion states the facts.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hon. Guión Q. Hall, Judge. Mrs. Saylor, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the Supreme Conclave Knights of Damon was the defendant there. The case was this: John R. Saylor held a benefit certificate in the appellant order for $2,000, payable to his wife, Mrs. Saylor, appellee. He died on May 8, 1899.

From the chancery court of Jefferson county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Hartman, the appellant, was complainant in the court below; Moore, the mortgagor, and Reynolds the senior mortgagee, appellees, were defendants there. On May 17, 1894, Moore executed and delivered to Hartman a promissory note for the sum of $297.69, with the further agreement that Hartman was to allow him future advances to the amount of $35.

Feom the circuit court of, second district, Yalobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Hughes, appellant, was defendant in the court below; he was prosecuted and convicted of a misdemeanor and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Justices of the peace are elected constitutional officers of the state, secs. 27 and 171, constitution of 1890.

From the circuit court of, first district, Panola county. Hon. PerriN H. Lowrey, Judge. Partee and another, appellees, were the plaintiffs in the court below. The appeal to the supreme court was prosecuted by Andrews, appellant, who claimed the property levied upon, from a judgment of the circuit court against him on a claimant’s issue. The judgment in appellee’s favor against the original defendant, Dye, was rendered in a justice of the peace court for $47.67 and costs.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. HoN. Robert Powell, Judge. Held: furthermore, that the presumption of negligence arising from the communication of fire by an engine is not a strong one, not requiring therefor the-highest and most conclusive kind of evidence to rebut it ’ ’ (the note explains that by the ‘ ‘ highest ’5 is meant that it is not necessary to have the facts as to condition of spark…

From the circuit court of, second district, Yalobusha county. ITon. Perrin H. Lowrey, Judge. Mrs. Seamans, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. Held: in well considered cases, that the likelihood of cattle straying on the track anywhere is one of the risks of the employment. Patton v. Central Iowa Ry. Co.-, 73 Iowa, 306; Sweeney v. Central Pacific Ry.

From the circuit court of Clay county. Hon. C. H. Campbell, Special Judge. The railroad company, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the insurance company, appellee, was the defendant there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. As between the holder of the bills of lading and the railroad company, the cotton was conclusively presumed to be in the hands of the carrier. Code 1892, § 4299.

Fkom the circuit court of Wayne county. HoN. Thaddeus A. Wood, Judge. The statute of limitations lacked five years of being complete on the 1st day of November, 1890, when the present constitution of the ¡State of Mississippi was adopted in which sec. 104 provides that statutes of limitations in civil causes shall not run against the state, or any subdivision or municipal corporation thereof.

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. HoN. William K. McLauriN, Judge. . Redus, appellee, a surgeon, was plaintiff in the court below; Till Brothers, a partnership and the members of the firm, appellants, were defendants there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendants appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. .

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. Hon. Patrice Henry, Judge. Young, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Ashley, appellant, was defendant there. The proceeding originated in an attachment for rent, based on an affidavit by Ashley, the landlord. The goods of Young were seized thereunder, and he instituted an action of replevin for their recovery. The facts are otherwise fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Lee county. Hon. Henry L. Muldrow, Chancellor. Jourdan, appellee, was complainant, and Mrs. Wilson, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a decree granting the complainant relief in part, Mrs. Wilson appealed to the supreme court, and Jourdan prosecuted a cross appeal, without bond.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Smith,, the appellee, was the plaintiff and the insurance company, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Claiborne county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Mary Ward, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment for $250 in plaintiff’s favor she appealed to the supreme court, contending that her recovery was greatly reduced because of errors, to her prejudice, committed by the court below.

From the circuit court of Lafayette county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. The Bank of Oxford, appellant, contested an assessment against it for back taxes before the board of supervisors of Lafayette county, appellee. The contest was decided against the bank by the supervisors, and it appealed to the circuit court, which also decided against the bank, and it appealed to the supreme court.

<p>1. Telesbaph Company. Constitutional law. Constitution of the United States, see. 8, art. 1. Interstate commerce. Penalty.</p> <p>A state statute, undertaking- to impose a penalty on a telegraph company for delay in the transmission of a telegram from one state to another, interferes with interstate commerce, within the meaning of sec. 8, art., 1 of the federal constitution, empowering congress to regulate commerce among the states.</p> <p>2. Same. Code 1892, § 4326.</p> <p>Code 1892, $ 4326, imposing a penalty on teleg-raph companies for failure to transmit correctly and deliver telegrams within a reasonable time, does not apply to a case of delay in transmitting.</p>

Erom the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The hardware company, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Todd, appellee, a physician, was defendant there. Erom a judgment for defendant, pursuant to a peremptory instruction, in the court below the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in or are clearly inferable from the opinion of the court. There is no substantial dispute as to the facts in the case.

From the circuit court of Warren county, trial in vacation. HoN. K. H. ThompsoN, Special Judge. The state, on the relation of Kierskey, appellee, was the plaintiff, and Kelly, appellant, was defendant in the court below. On December 4, 1900, an election was held in Vicksburg for the purpose of choosing city officials to serve for four years from the second Monday of January, 1901, as provided by the city charter.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Baxter McFarland, Chancellor. Miss Sharpley and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Plant, appellee, was defendant there. The purpose of the suit was to remove clouds from title to land. In April, 1888, W. B. Sharpley, complainants’ ancestor, executed a deed of trust conveying all of his lands to one Weisel, as trustee, to secure a large debt to Stern Brothers.

From the chancery court of, first district, Carroll county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Halsey, and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Gee and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to confirm the complainant’s title to the lands in controversy, known as the “Big Sand Place,” and to vacate and annul the deeds under which defendants claimed the plantation as clouds upon complainant’s title.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Moore, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Greenwood, appellant, was defendant there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. A tenant, by disclaimer and notice, may terminate the tenancy. 1 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. (2d ed.), 810. A surrender of possession is unnecessary, lb., 811; Holman v. Bormer, 63 Miss., 131; Meridian, etc., Oo. v. Bailo, 68 Miss., 135.

Erom the circuit court of first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The state, on the relation of the attorney-general, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below ; the Mississippi Cotton Oil Company and fifteen other cotton oil companies, appellees, were defendants there.

Feom the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Yandell, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the County of Madison, appellee, was defendant there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The court below erred in not dismissing the cause without prejudice to plaintiff’s rights. Under code 1892, §79, the circuit court only had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal. The want of a bill of exceptions was fatal to the appeal.

From the chancery court of Sunflower county. Hon. A. Mo. C. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Burroughs, appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Jones and others, appellees, were defendants there. The suit was once before in the supreme court and is reported. Bwroughs v. Jones, 78 Miss., 235 (28 So., 944). The facts of the case were fully stated by the court in the opinion then delivered,* to which reference is made.

From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Collier, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Madison county, appellant, was defendant there. The opinion fully states the case.

From the chancery court of Yazoo county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Bomer Brothers, appellants, were complainants in tbe court below; Canaday, appellee, was defendant there. Complainants filed their bill in chancery against thé defendant below, seeking to restrain defendant, by injunction, from selling or in any way incumbering the title to certain standing timber, and seeking the specific performance of a contract.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Rainey, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below, Hinds county, appellee, was defendant there. The case was once before in the supreme court and is reported. Rainey v. Hinds County, 78 Miss., 308, to which reference is made for a fuller presentation of the controversy.

From the chancery court of Kemper county. . Hon. A-dam M. Byrd, Chancellor. Overstreet and others, appellees, were complainants in the court below; Hopper, appellant, was defendant there. Appel-lees, who were trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, filed this bill, seeking to cancel appellant’s claim to the lands described therein as a cloud upon the church’s title.

From the chancery court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Williams and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; Dreyfus and others, appellees, were defendants there. The defendants claimed the land in controversy under a deed to them made by a trustee in pursuance of a sale under a deed of trust executed by complainants’ ancestor, under whom appellants claimed by inheritance.

Feom the circuit court of Sunflower county. HoN. Frane E. Larkin, Judge. Montgomery, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Pitts and another were defendants there. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in the circuit court for $250, the full penalty named in the contract on which the suit was based, and defendants appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of, second district, Bolivar county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. The Goyer Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Jones, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion of the court states the facts. The only question presented for the consideration of the court is whether under the bankruptcy act of 1898, the sureties on an appeal bond are relieved from further liability by the discharge in bankruptcy of the principal.

From the chancery court of, first district, Hinds county. HoN. HeNry C. CoNN, Chancellor. Mrs. Lieber, the appellee, was complainant and Schwartz, the appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a decree overruling defendant’s demurrer to the bill of complaint he appealed to the supreme court. The facts are sufficiently apparent from the opinion of the court.

From the chancery court of Washington county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor.

From the chancery court of Sunflower county. HoN. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The Ely & Walker Dry Goods Company and others, appel-lees, were the complainants in the court below; Smith and others, appellants, were defendants there.

From the chancery court of Washington county. ■ HoN. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Branton and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Washington County, by its board of supervisors, appellee, was defendant there. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Laws, relating to contracts for public work, ordinarily require them to be let to the lowest bidder.

Fb,om the circuit court of, first district, Coahoma county. Hon. Frane E. Larkin, Judge. Cunning, the appellant, was convicted of murder and appealed. The only persons present at the time of the homicide were appellant, deceased and one Robinson. Robinson testified at the trial of the case in the court below that the killing was accidental.

From the circuit court of Oktibbeha county. HoN. Eugene O. Syees, Judge. Richardson, the appellant, was indicted for an assault and battery with intent to kill and murder Henrietta Pierce. At the November, 1900, term of the circuit court he was tried on said charge and acquitted, and at the same term of the court he was indicted by the grand jury under § 969 of the code of 1892.

From the circuit court of Grenada county. HoN. James F. McCool, Special Judge. Davis, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Searcy, the appellee, was defendant there. From a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, he appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts. 1. Two of the jurors were related to the defendant. This was unknown to plaintiff until after the verdict had been returned.

From the circuit court of Monroe county. Hon. Eugene O. Syees, Judge. Holliday, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A dog is an animal that rarely attracts the attention of persons, while, on the other, hand, such an animal as a horse or a cow is almost sure to do so.

From the chancery court of, first district, Hinds county. HoN. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Mrs. Long, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Stanley and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to cancel a tax deed as a cloud upon complainant’s title to lands. From a decree denying complainant relief, she appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in, or clearly inferable from the opinion of the court.

Feom the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. Guión Q. Hall, Judge. Callaghan, whose executor is the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below. Bentley and others, appellants, were defendants there. Callaghan and two other persons formerly owned the land jointly, and Callaghan had possession. He and one of his cotenants mortgaged their interest in the land.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Baker, appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Cox, tax collector, appellee, was defendant there. The suit was a mandamus proceeding. It was decided in the court below for defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Jones, the appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of the murder of one Ella Bradley, by shooting her, and was sentenced to be hanged. From the judgment and sentence he appealed to the supreme court. The principal error assigned was that the court below erred in admitting the dying declaration of Ella Bradley.

From the circuit court of Sunflower county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Hampton, the appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Lee, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court fully states the facts of the case.

From the circuit court of, second district, Perry county. Hon. John R. Enochs, Judge. Whittle, the appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of perjury, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Morrison, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the American Snuff Company, appellee, was, after the suit had been dismissed as to another, the sole defendant there. From a yerdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor for a sum much less than that demanded, he appealed to the supreme court. The Geo.

Feom the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. William C. MabtiN, Chancellor.

Feom the circuit court of, second district, Hinds county. Hon. Robeet Powell, Judge. Williams, the appellee, a merchant, was the plaintiff in the court below; Mrs. Brent, the appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

From the judgment of HoN. FraNK E. LarkiN, circuit judge, denying relief on habeas corpus. The opining of the supreme court fully states the facts. The affidavits upon which the pretended convictions are based are all crude and utterly insufficient to support the pretended convictions, hence the appellant should have been discharged. Grubbs’ remedy was an appeal to the circuit court.

From the circuit court of Warren county. HoN. Patrick HeNry, Judge. Dyche, the appellant, was the plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellee, was defendant there. Appellant, an infant, sued to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of her father, Kirk P. Dyche, who was dangerously injured by being run over by the cars of appellee, at Delta, Louisiana (an unincorporated town), in 1898.

From the circuit court of Holmes county. Hon. William F. Stevens, Judge. Hendricks, the appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of a violation of the statute, code 1892, § 1068, as amended, Laws 1900, p. 140, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts were these: In August, 1900, appellant entered into a written contract with one Bailey to make a crop, on shanes, on Bailey’s farm in 1901, which contract was signed by appellant, but was not signed by Bailey.

From the circuit court of Warren county. Hon. Patrick Henry, Judge. Verhallen and another, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; Laveochia, appellee, was defendant there. The suit was an action upon a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in Illinois against appellee. Plaintiffs filed as an exhibit to their declaration what purported to be a transcript of the record from the docket of the justice of the peace, and some loose papers.

From the circuit court of Washington county. HoN. FraNK E. LareiN, Judge. The case was a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by Bud Smith, which was tried in the circuit court and the writ there denied. Smith appealed to the supreme court. The opinion fully states the case. The appellant makes but one point. He was .charged with a misdemeanor, and, under the facts, could have been guilty only as charged.

From the circuit court of Noxubee county. Hon. GuioN Q. Hall, Judge. Graham, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Sparkman, the appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the case. The court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to rule out the evidence of plaintiff.

From the chancery coart of first district, Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. ConN, Chancellor. Herron, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; the insurance company, the appellant, was defendant there. The suit was an attachment in chancery. The court below decreed in favor of complainant, and the defendant insurance company appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Rankin county. Hon. James H. Neville, Judge. Goforth and others, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; Stingley, Taylor & Co., appellees, were defendants there. From a judgment on a peremptory instruction in defendant’s favor, the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court. The opinion fully states the facts. The court below erred in disallowing the appellant’s application to amend their bill of particulars.

From the chancery court of Leake county. I-IoN. AdaM M. Byrd, Chancellor. Bobbitt and others, appellees, were complainants in the court, below; Wallace and others, appellants, were defendants there. The facts upon which the case was disposed of by the supreme-court are fully stated in the opinion.

From the chancery court of Bolivar county. IíoN. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Dreyfus, the appellant, was the complainant in the court below; Gage and others, appellees, were defendants there. From the decree of the court below (mentioned in the opinion) the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The facts are these: One Moore was a tenant on a farm in Bolivar county.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Adams, state revenue agent, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railway, etc., company, appellant, was defendant there. There was a former appeal in this case (78 Miss., 887), when the judgment, sustaining the demurrer of the defendant, the Jackson Electric Railway, Light & Power Company, to the plaintiff’s declaration, was reversed and the cause remanded.

From the circuit court of second district, Hinds county. I-IoN. Robert Powell, Judge. Mrs. Beardsley, the appellee, and one Mrs. Maud Staples were plaintiffs in the court below; the railway company, appellant, was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Yazoo county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Cunningham and others, appellees, were complainants in the court below; Smith, appellant, was defendant there. The suit was one to remove clouds from the titles to lands. From a decree in favor of the complainants the defendant appealed to the supreme court. Appellees claimed title to the land in controversy by inheritance from their father, M. B..

From tbe circuit court of first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Tbe appellee, Robert Lowry, was plaintiff, and the electric railway, etc., company defendant in tbe court below.

From the chancery court of Neshoba county. HoN. JohN Davis, Special Chancellor. Gentry, the appellant, was complainant and Gamblin, the appellee, was defendant in the court below. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. Section 500 of the code of 1892 specifically confers on chancery courts jurisdiction to remove clouds upon titles. The bill alleges that appellee asserts a claim or pretends to have a right or title to the land mentioned in the bill.

From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. Frane A. Montgomery, Judge. The Hanover National Bank, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; Montgomery, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Lauderdale county. Hn. Guión Q. Hall, Judge. Ida Stainback, a schoolgirl, the appellant on the first appeal and the appellee on the second one, was the plaintiff in the court below; the city of Meridian was defendant there.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. HoN. A. Me. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Mrs. Henry and her children, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Henderson, executor, appellee, was defendant there. From a decree of the court below sustaining a demurrer to complainants’ bill, they appealed to the supreme court. In January, 1898, Mrs. L. H. Henry died, leaving a will, and named T. R. Henderson, appellee, as the executor of the will.

Feom the chancery court of, second district, Hinds county. HoN. Henry G. Conn, Chancellor. McNeill, the appellant, was complainant in the court below; Lee and others, the appellees, were defendants there. From a decree sustaining a demurrer to the bill of complaint and dismissing the suit, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion fully states the case.

From the circuit court of Harrison county. Hon. J. Ira Ford, Special Judge. Jackson, the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Lopez, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appealed to the supreme court. When the case reached the supreme court the appellee made a motion to strike from the record the stenographer’s report of the evidence, because it was not agreed to by counsel or approved by the regular judge of the court.

From the chancery court of Warren county. HoN. W. C. Martin, Chancellor. The Enochs-Havis Company, appellant, was complainant, and the appellees, Newcomb and others, defendants in-the court below.

From tbe chancery court of Lauderdale county. Hon. N. C. Hill’ Chancellor. The appellees were complainants and the appellant defendant in the court below. The appellant was a building and loan association domiciled in the state of New York, and was lending money to its shareholders.

Fbom: tlie chancery court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. ITeNey C. CoNN, Chancellor. The Mount Helm Baptist Church and others, appellants, were the complainants in the court below; Jones and others, appel-lees, were defendants there. The Mount Helm Baptist Church of Jackson, Miss., was organized by the colored people of the Baptist faith in that city prior to 1868.

<p>1. Moetgage. Absolute deed. Code 1892, j! 4233. Possession. Fraud. Parol evidence.</p> <p>Code 1892, l4233, excluding parol evidence to show that a deed absolute in form is in fact a mortgage, recognizes the admissibility of such evidence.</p> <p>(a) Where the grantor has not parted with the possession of the property, and</p> <p>(b) Where the issue is one of fraud in the procurement of the deed, although the grantor may have parted with the possession of the property.</p> <p>2. Same. Homestead. Abandonment.</p> <p>When a husband and wife temporarily remove from tb eir homestead and cultivate other lands for a year or two, leaving their children in the occupancy of the home, intending themselves all the time to 'return to it, they have not parted with its possession.</p> <p>3. Same. Facts examined.</p> <p>Facts examined touching the procuring of a deed absolute in form and adjudged sufficient to present an issue of fraud, for the determination of a jury as to whether the instrument was not in fact a mortgage.</p>

From; tbe chancery court of Warren county. Host. William 0. Martin, Chancellor. The city of Vicksburg, appellee, was complainant in the court below; the Vicksburg Waterworks Company was defendant there. The defendant moved the court for a decree removing the case to the federal court, which motion was overruled, and from the order overruling the motion the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

Feom the circuit court of Po'ntotoc county. HoN. EugeNe O. Stubs, Judge. Fulton and others, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below ; the town of Pontotoc was defendant there: From a judgment in plaintiffs’ favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

Feom the circuit court of Lauderdale county. HoN. GuioN Q. Hall, Judge. Blalack, the appellant, was indicted for the murder of one .Benjamin Sparkman, was tried and convicted of manslaughter, and appealed to the supreme court. The homicide occurred at the home of deceased, in Meridian, Miss., where appellant was at the time boarding.

Feom the circuit court of, second district, Coahoma county. Hon. Franic E. LarKin, Judge. This suit was begun by Jennings, appellant, filing an application before the board of supervisors of Coahoma county, ap-pellee, for relief from an erroneous assessment for taxation of personal property. The board denied the relief and Jennings appealed from its judgment to the circuit court, which court dismissed the appeal, and Jennings appealed to the supreme court.

From tbe circuit court of Pike county. • HoN. JeeeersoN Truly, Judge. Breeland and others, appellants, were indicted, tried and convicted in tbe court below of wbitecapping, violating tbe act entitled, “An act to suppress whitecapping and like forms of intimidation,” approved February 11, 1898 (Laws 1898, p. 8,1), and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court states the facts.

From the chancery court of Monroe county. HoN. Hewey L. Muldrow., Chancellor. Mayfield, the appellee, was the complainant in the court below ; Herndon, appellant, was defendant there. The opinion of the court states the case. It is well established in this state that the board of supervisors is a court of limited jurisdiction, and all jurisdictional facts must appear affirmatively on its record, else the presumption is against their existence.

Feom tbe circuit court of Franklin county. Hon. J eeeersoN Truly, Judge. Appellant, Benson, was indicted at tbe April, 1900, term of tbe circuit court of Franklin county, on tbe charge of burglary, breaking into tbe courthouse at Meadville and taking $4,000 from tbe safe of tbe county treasury.

Eeom tbe chancery court of Lee county. Hon. Henry L. Muldrow, Chancellor. Mills, the appellee, was complainant in the court below; the Johnson Publishing Company, appellánt, was defendant there. The opinion sufficiently states the case.

Peom tbe circuit court of Webster county. IioN. William P. Stevews, Judge. Williams, appellant, was indicted for arson, tbe burning of a storehouse, the property of one Stevenson, in which house appellant was at the time doing a mercantile business. The evidence in the case was wholly circumstantial.

Feom the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. How. Hobert Powell, Judge. The Galloway Coal Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Hunter, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion of the court states the case. The contract was signed by both Hunter and Green as agent. The goods were furnished thereunder. This made Hunter a joint contractor or surety, and not a guarantor. As to the difference between a surety and a guarantor, see 14 Am & Eng. Ehcy.

From tbe circuit court of Webster county. Hour. John B. ENOCHS, Judge, presiding by exchange. Garner, appellant, was plaintiff in tbe court below; Webster county, appellee, was defendant there. At tbe December, 1899, meeting of tbe board of supervisors of Webster county, certain citizens of tbe county presented their petition to tbe board asking that proceedings be bad to establish a part of said county into a stock law district.

From the chancery court of Leflore county. IíoN. A. McKiMBBougi-i, Chancellor. Claude Cockrell, appellant, was the complainant in the court below; the appellees were defendants there.

From: the circuit court of Chickasaw county. Horn EugeNe 0. Sykes, Judge. Appellant and her husband, Leroy Harper, were jointly indicted on the charge of murdering one A. B. Bichardson. A severance was had, and appellant was tried and convicted of manslaughter. Appellant and her husband were employed to work on the farm of deceased, and were absent from their work on the day before the difficulty occurred which resulted in the death of deceased.

From the circuit court of Oktibbeha county. HoN. EugeNe O. Sykes, Judge. Held: “If the bailiff in charge of a jury impaneled to try a felony, after their retirement to consider of their verdict, inform them that they shall not have any meat or drink until they have agreed, it will be no cause for setting aside their verdict of conviction.” SkatesJ case, 64 Miss., 644 (651-3).

Feom tbe circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. Hon. Robebt Powell., Judge. Hasie, the appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; the railway company was defendant there. Plaintiff was the superintendent of a bridge company, engaged in the construction of the substructure of a new railway bridge for appellee ovey Pearl River at Jackson, and in the performance of the work claimed the right to use the old bridge in going back and forth to his work.

FROM the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. How. Robert Powell, Judge. Hill, appellant, was plaintiff in tbe court below; tbe railway company was defendant there.

From the circuit court of, first district, Hinds county. JEEon. Robert Powell, Judge.

Prom the circuit court of DeSoto county. IToN. PereiN IT. Lowrey, Judge. Appeal by Thomas Craft, Jr., from a judgment of the circuit court affirming a decision of the board of supervisors of DeSoto county. . At the November, 1900, meeting of the board of supervisors of DeSoto county, J. N. Brown and fifty-nine others filed a petition with said board for the opening of a county road from Olive Branch, three miles west, between sections 28 and 33, 29 and 82, 80 and 31.

From tbe circuit court of, second district, Perry county. Hon. John E. Enochs, Judge. Hall, appellee, was plaintiff, and tbe telegraph company, appellant, was defendant in tbe court below. Tbe suit was' for tbe recovery of tbe statutory penalty, and, in addition, for actual damages suffered. Tbe statute, code 1892, giving tbe penalty is in these words: “4326.

From: the chancery court of Monroe county. Hon. Henry L. Muldrow, Chancellor. The appellee, Riley, was complainant, and the appellant, Easter, was defendant in the court below. The opinion states the case. Complainant makes a virtue out of the fact that he only amended the prayer of his bill. He made an entirely new case, at all events, if he only changed a letter.

From tbe circuit court of Jones county. ■ Hon. JohN R. Ehoohs, Judge. Appellant, Miss Magouirk, wbo was plaintiff in tbe court below, brought this suit against tbe Western Union Telegraph Company, defendant there, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by tbe sending of a dispatch over the company’s wires, which is averred in the declaration to have been a bogus telegram, forged by one Cooper, an agent of the company.

Feom: the circuit court of Harrison county. Host. Tames IT. Neville., Judge. Johnson, appellant, made application to the court below for naturalization, was denied the right of becoming a citizen, and appealed from the judgment, dismissing bis petition, to tbe su-oreme court. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court. Tbe appellant should bave been naturalized. In re Rodriguez, 81 Fed. Rep., 354.

From: the circuit court of, second district, Yallobusha county. Hon. Z. M. Stephens, Judge. Johnson, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Hunt and others, appellees, were defendants there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

McDonald, appellee, was plaintiff in tbe court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the court below against defendant for the loss of his schooner and cargo, caused by the failure of defendant to open its drawbridge after timely notice and signals given. The defendant’s motion for a new trial having been overruled, it was allowed sixty days within which to prepare and have authenticated a bill of exceptions.

From the circuit court of Marion county. Hon. John H. Enochs, Judge. Held: and we can see no reason why it should. See also Banlc v. Freeman, 171 U. S., 620, as to this proposition. The provision in the deed of trust that all increase of prop- • erty, real or personal, acquired by purchase or otherwise, is void, and appellant cannot recover under that. Williams v. Crook, 63 Miss., 9.

FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county. IioN. EugeNe O. Sykes, Judge. The appellant, Klyce, was indicted for the murder of one Elmer McAfee. On his first trial he was convicted of manslaughter and appealed to the supreme court. This conviction was reversed and a new trial granted by the supreme court. Klyce v. State, 78 Miss.', 450.

RrC>m the circuit court of, second district, Carroll county. HoN. William R. Stevehs, Judge. Morgan, appellee, was prosecuted for obstructing a public road, was convicted in the justice’s court, but the case on appeal was decided in his favor in the circuit court, and the state appealed to the supreme court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. Code 1892, § 1145, upon which the prosecution was based, is as follows: “1145 (2871).

From the circuit court of Smith county. Hon. John B. Enochs, Judge. The opinion states the case. The New Orleans Acid & Fertilizer Company, appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Grissom & Suggs, two of the appel-lees were defendants there, and the other appellees were claimants of the property attached. The right of property could not be tried on the claimants’ motion suggesting the debtors’ bankruptcy, which could only be availed of by the trustee in bankruptcy.

From: the chancery court of Jones county. Hon. Stone Devours, Chancellor. Williams, appellant, was complainant in the court below, and Bonner, guardian of Ruby Bonner, an infant, was defendant there. The suit was an application to the chancery court, in which the guardianship was pending, for a decree directing the guardian to pay complainant’s debt from the estate of the ward.

From: the circuit court of Marshall county. HoN. Z. M. Stepi-ieNs, Judge. Shaw, appellant, was plaintiff in court below; the Telegraph Company was defendant there. Held: in accordance with the views expressed by some other courts, that a regulation by the telegraph company for exemption from injury resulting from ordinary negligence, is valid at the common law. It is not held that the statute makes valid such stipulation, but that they are valid at common law.

From tbe chancery court of Jefferson county. HoN. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Held: that the three creditors named in the recital were only entitled to be paid ratably with the other-three creditors, in proportion to their demand, out of the proceeds of the property so assigned.” After discussing the case, Chancellor Kent, referring to the operative part of the deed, says: “The plaintiffs are put on an equality with…

FROM the circuit court of Lowndes county. IioN. EugeNe 0. Sykes, Judge. Tennison, appellant, was indicted for the murder of one Morris Freese. He moved the court for a change of venue on the ground .that be could not secure a fair and impartial trial in the county. The facts shown on this application are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Feom the chancery court of Franklin county. Hon. William C. Martin, Chancellor. Mrs. Young, appellant, was complainant in the court below: Mock and others, appellees, were defendants there. The facts are stated fully in the opinion of the court.

Feom: the circuit court of Tazoo county. iloN. Eobeet Powell, Judge. Appellant was indicted at tbe August, 1901, term of tbe circuit court of Yazoo county on a charge of tbe murder of one Peter Stiff, was tried at tbe September term of said court, and convicted.

Erom the circuit court of Eranklin county. Hon. JeeeersoN Truly, Judge. Mrs. Eakin, appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company was defendant there. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the court below for $2,500, and defendant appealed to the supreme court. The opinion of the court fully states the facts.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. Hon. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Shepprie, the appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted of the murder of one Beatrice Peables, and was sentenced to suffer death, lie appealed from the conviction and sentence to the supreme court.

From the circuit court of Copiah county. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. The Jackson Fertilizer Company, appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Norman and Long, appellants, were defendants there. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Earnes and Dale, mentioned in the opinion (the partners who assumed the debts of the co-partnership), were not sued, having been discharged as bankrupts. Tbe questions presented by the record are as follows: 1.

From the chancery court of Washington county. HoN. J. McC. Kimbrough, Chancellor. The city of Greenville, appellant, was complainant, and Mrs. Harvie, appellee, defendant in the court below. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The nature of the code provisions reviewed in this case fully appears in the opinion of Chief Justice Whitfield.

From the circuit court of Leflore county. Host. Frank E. Larkin, Judge. Humphries & Brister, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; the railway company, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion states the facts. It is well settled that the employment of a physician or surgeon is not ordinarily within the scope of the authority of a subordinate agent or employe, though there may be extreme cases giving authority to employ one. The roadmaster has no such authority.

From the circuit court of Lafayette county. XJ ON. P. XI. Lowery, Judge. Suit by W. D. Moore against the Illinois Central Railroad Company to recover damages for bis ejection from one of its trains. Moore lived at Taylors, a station on tlie appellant’s road south of Oxford, and on February 26, 1900, desired to go to Memphis, Tenn., and to take advantage of excursion rates which the defendant company then had in force.

From the chancery court of, first district, Marion county. NoN. StoNE Devours., Chancellor. Applewhite, appellant, was complainant in the court below; Foxworth and. one Bennett, a deputy chancery clerk, appellees, were defendants there. The case was tried upon bill and answer, and from a decree dismissing the bill the complainant appealed to the supreme court.