North Carolina Newspapers

. "- "-j '." , ' "r"-"-"' ' --.'"- - - "' , - " ' 111,11 '''!' 1 1 . ,-, ! i , ... : .. ! ' ' "' : . i I. ' " . ' i j ' , ' i ! . ' "' ' ' . . " '" ' "" " "'M ""- 'ini.1. . .1 - - t .I,,,., , ,i .;.,, ,,j , .. . ,,. 1 . ft in ii n i ii- r " i " ,'i ft ' .-. .' '" ' "'' " ' ' i. i i ' ' J I ' i ' . X. J. 0. L. HARRIS, Editor. " Our? are the plans of fair deUghtfuPpeaee-vrnwa party rage to live like brothers' W. M. BRO TFjV, -PuMisher. VOLUME I. RALEIGH, TIIUKS D A v?OFEBTlUAR Y 28, 1878. NUMBER 45. TllG TV(36klv Rg istel. r";:". i - " . RIDICULING LEACH! Gen J. M. Leach and Mr. T. B. Keogh are in Washington, lobbying against Wad dell's bill to abolish -the Western District Court. Wont somebody please give Leach an office and keep him quiet ? Wilmington St ir. , - The people who are not slaves to' the par ty lash; will probably take care of Gen. L?ach. Democratic organs should remem ber,lhat James Madison Leach, has never been defeated by the people 1 ; I r , -1 - DEFINING THEIR POSITION. . A Ero6rtteatittro of the new Georffia Oon tution ia the requirement that all pelrf'Bf'ISlimif HilAii uave miu an uuta uuaigtju. against t tern 1 before being permitted to vote. Charlotte Democrat. f ,1s , , tJ r; For our own part we adhere to an open ing Ipng ago urged, that payment of poll tax should bs required as a prerequisite for voting, and shall always regret that the last Constitutional Convention "did not embody the plan in the fundamental law. And the time may come when the insertion of such provision will be dem indei rffillsboro Re cordet. , -1 ; M ' ! 3 ' The Constitution ;- of North i; Carolina' or dains universal 'suffrage, "based upon man hood. A large majority of ; the Democratic p:vrty are in favor of adding a qualification to the present free suffrage? pro vision of the ConstiUtion,YrequlrlQg the exhibition of . ?. receipt for the taxes of the previous year, as a prerequisite to voting. If a man is not able to pay taxes and has not been exempted bjthe Cpunty . CJommissioners, he . is to be punished for bis poverty. , The proposition to require the exhibition of the poll tax re ceipt, , is unjust and Would discriminate against the poor. We are unalterably op posed to any restriction upon manhood suf frage ; but if a tax receipt is to be required, that receipt should apply to taxes upon all the subjects of taxation. We have no doubt of the result upon this issue, whenever it Is nut to a vote. ; i ; A QUESTION OF SANITY.. The next Republican State Convention will take' ground for the abolition of the poll tax. Raleigh Register. Then the next Republican State Conven tion will prove thpmselves an assemblage of political idiots. Henderson Courier. Assertions without reasons to convince the judgment : do not carry much weight. It may be that our esteemed cotemporary is right, but we prefer to digest the reasons for the above assertion, before we retreat from our position in favor of the abolition of the pollt?x. There is much to be said for and against the proposition ; the truth can only be ascertained by a thorough discussion of the proposition. If The Courier has well grounded reasons for opposing the ablotion of the poll tax, its readers are entitled to them. ; THE "SILVER BILL." How it rings V "the silver bill !" who wonlsJjQbt like to have as many silver dol lars as would fill the State House? J Sil ver is good in its place, and so is gold, and so are greenbacks. But can silver be made equal to gold ? Gold is the rarest and most precious' metal; gold is more convenient to handle than silver. If you piy a man' twenty silver dollars, these dollars are so weighty that it is inconven ient for him to carry them ; but if yon pay him a twenty dollar gold piece he stts it in his vest pocket, and hardly feels the weight of it. , Make the silver dollar equal in value to tlie gold dollar, and there can be no ob jection to it, J provided it is made a little inure valuable than the gold dollar, so as to compensate1 for the inconvenience of handling it. Wo have no feeling on the subject. We thinkas , much of silpr in its. place as we do of gold. As a matter of convenience We would prefer the green back or national ;bank note. 1 But will Congress authorize a' proper silver dollar ? Even four hundred and twenty grains will not do, for we observe that the "trade dollar" thus made, is worth only 97 cents in New Tork. Four hundred and twelve and a half grains, the 'proposed new dol- larj would be, theref ore, not worth more than 92 cents.'' t We see by, the; papers jthat one of our corparatibhs has just paid its employees in silver. Silver can be bought with greens backs at 92 to 93 cents in the dollar.'. In every one hundred dollars thus paid out to its employees by this corporation, it is l6ar that the corporation made seven dol lars, and its employees lost seven dollars, wui so on inproDortion.: The poor man Juis uot, therefore, thus far been benefitted y payments made in silver.- Such a sil- ver dollar as the one we have above men lloned would be convertible intorgold or greenbacks it. will. What the country wants a rcadily and constantly convert i- lie currency. Snch a currency,' while it would not injuriously affect any interest, would be of substantial service to all classes of onr people. It is said the President will veto the so called silver bill. We do not know what foundation there is for this supposition, but we will venture to predict that if fie should do so, he will, at the same time, suggest the very best bill that could be psssed on the subject. ,ligest of Supreme Court Decisions. From the Doily Obseryer. By Messrs. Gray & Stamps, Attorneys at Law. ' State vs. Long et als., from Guilford Error1 Judgment arrested. Landlord and tenant. Repeal of Statute. This was an indictment under sec. 15, chapter 64,iBattle's Revisal, against the tenant and lessee : of land, the rent of which was to bo a share of the crop, for removing the crop without the lessee's as sent, without prescribed notice, and against other defendants for aiding and abetting the act. Verdict of guilty against all the defendants except J. W. Wood. Motion in arrest of judgment disallowed, j The section referred to in Battle's Reyisal was amended by act of Assembly, March 19th, 1875, and subse quently by another act March 12th, 1877, the 8th section of Which in express terms repeals, sections 13, 14 and 15, chapter 64, Battle's Revisal and chapter 209 of Acts of '74rj575 ; and makes removal of crop or any part of it from the land on which it wasrdpt,without payment of rent, etc., a misdemeanor. Held, That a repeal of a Statute, in a prosecution for an offence created under it, arrests the proceeding, and withdraws all authority to pronounce judgment, even after conviction ; and no aid can be de rived from the last enactment, which is necessarily prospective only in its opera tion, and Under the Constitution cannot apply, to antecedent acts. State vs. Nutt and State" vk. Wise, cited and approved. 1 ' ; State t'$. Laxtoh : from Iredell. Judgment affirmed. . Indictment for rape tried at' Spring Term 1877 of Iredell Superior Court be fore Schenck, -Judge. The offence was committed j in Caldwell county and the prisoner was convicted at Fall Term 1876 of the Superior Court of that county, but on appeal' to the Supreme Court was granted a new trial (76 N. C ) and upon application; the case was removed to Ire dell. There was a verdict of guilty, judgment of death and appeal. During the trial, the prosecutrix in giving her testimony wept and hesitated in a part of her narration Te Court said "you heed not use and the Court will not' require yon to use language that will shock your modesty." The motlier of the prosecutrix while testifying, hung down her head, wept and spoke in a low tone of voice. The de fendant's counsel told her to hold up her head and speak louder and called on the court to enforce this request. His Hon or replied that he would not compel her to hold up her head but would rcqnire her tp speak so as to be heard by the counselthat some allowance 'was to be made for the woman as she was overcome with emotien. The defendant excepted to t these remarks as indicating an opinion on' the weight of testimony. During the trial the prosecutrix and other witnesses remained in the court room, and make demonstrations of feeling calculated to excite the sympathy of the jury and warp their judgment. The do fendant did not ask the court to order their removal but made an exception to ''; & i J'K' - ' ? s . ' ; their conduct, t To contradict the- testimony ; of the prosecutrix, the prisoner's counsel offered in evidence tier examination when before the magistrate. The Solicitor for the State, then offered to prove the account of the matter given by the prosecutrix to her mother after her return home, as con cjurring with and corroborating her testi mony and affecting her credit. This, on Ejection,1 was admitted by the Court. Held, 1st: That there was nothing im proper in the remark .of the judge to which first exception was taken. It is the duty of the Judge' to; preserve the disrnitv of the Court and to see that the decencies of life are not needlessly viola ted. : ' ! , ' Held Snd".-That Uhe remark of the Jude on. which second excention was based was not improper. The . emotion of the witness was toanjfest to the jury as well as to the Judge, and had he made the order as rcouested, it would have been as strong an intimation of opinion that the emotion was assumed, 'as his refusals to make Uie order indicated a belief that it was real. Had the witness fainted or fecorae sick while eiving in evidence; the rrirr wf nroo t A - rf- . tne action 01 tne' uuage in airectmg . . . , , . ., e 1 physician to oe .cauea to prescribe iorruxcgatwo iw . vuvvv r - 'Ti, f w,flB.n i u. - ..... , , . 237 U. u. r., torbiddmg a Judge in-givno 01 w is: puribuuic. 1 0 0 0 1 . 1 . . a ing a charge to the jury, to give an opin- ibirwhetheT"a -faxtis :?f ully-orsnfficiently proven, does not apply to the above, cases. The special object of that act was o pre vent the intimation of an opinion in con nection with and constituting a part of the instructions by which the jury were to be governed, and jvhen its influence over their minds would be direct and effective. Held, 3d : That as the Judge was not asked to order the removal of the wit nesses from'the Court Room, it was not improper for him. to allow them to re main. Quere, whether it would have been , error if he had been asked to re move them and had refused. Held, th : That it was not error to ad mit the testimony to which objection was made. The competence of such evidence is clearly established in March vs. Harrell 1 Jones 289. There is no error. Judgment below affirmed. By Byxum, J: State vs. EDgland. Mistrial. In the trial of an indictment against the defendant for burning a stable containing horses, tried at Fall Special Term of Burke Snperior Court, before Schenck, Judge, and a jury, the Solicitor discovered fatal defects in the indictment, and moved the Court to withdraw a juror and order a mistrial to be entered. This was done, and the defendant excepted. At the same term, a new bill of indictment was found, and the defendant was tried and convicted. His counsel then moved for his discharge on the ground of er ror in ordering the mistrial under first in dictment. The motion was rerusea, juag ment often years' imprisonment in the Pen itentiary was pronounced and the defendant appealed. Held, 'That the principle of law that no person shall be sul ject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy, &., does not ap ply. . The evidence in the case was circumstan tial. Several witnesses marked tracks near the stable, and one Morris testified that he applied a measure he had taken to the foot of Jos. England", brother of the prisoner. The Solicitor then asked if it fitted, which was objtcled to but allowed. Ijleld Error. The evidence was inter alia acta and inadmis sible. State vs. Davis, 77 N. C, cited and approved. Ritch et al vs. Wilson et al, Execu- tors, from Cabarrus. J udgment moainea and affirmed. v A testator, in his will, says : Item 9. I give and bequeath and direct to divided as follows (subject to the payment of debts and incidental expenses of administration) to wit: to my grand daughter Eliza, one half of an undivided fourth part, and the residue l?direct to be divided into three equal parts, one of which I bequeath to my daughter Mary, one to my daughter Martha and the remainder to children of my deceased son Zebitlon. .Item 10. The estate I have herein devised and bequeath ed to my daughter Mary , and Martha, I give to thein and each of them during the term of their nathral life and at the death of each to descend to the children of each' share and share alike my said daughters during life to use the profits arising or accruing from their estates res pectively and to. enure to their sole .nd separate and exclusive Use and benefit, and at the death of each to descend as aforesaid." The. estate disposed of by the 9 th item consisted of horses, mules, farming tools, household furniture, etc., to the value $3,0p0, and of cash on hand, notes and bonds of the value 01 $15,000. The question presented was whether Mary and Martha, the legatees for life, were, en titled to the "possession of the personal es tate so limited to them for life and then to "their children. His Honor, Judge Schenck, decided tjiat it was the duty of the Executors to sell the personal proper ty and pay over-the interest on the fund b acauircd CaRer ? pavms: debts) to the legatees foflife, annually,and the prinr ;ip3 to the children at the death of the egatees for life Appeal by the plain- ifffc! ( 1 Held, That the intention of the testator manifest that the life tenantsare not to the property ltselt, r but only, the m- ercit or profits of it during life andthe femaindermen are to have the principal, His! DurDOse to, benefit flie remaindermen k rit moLnm AfMtA if ap" uc &lvau " it. j::it. 11 Anffflil c-hossesfeion of the Dropertv. A largre por- - - i.-i.vi,. :a :t4. t v;.c. PripsO USU COnSUmiintUr, IT COnSirueu M&Jm Un ffttlm lifA tpnant. -wonld amount in ictto. an absolute gift; for so much leteof, as may be consumed in the using, ne forever without 1 compensation to LUnrinriprman. The rule in the En- ia hat where personal property is be- - 1 i , " I qudthed for life with remainder over and thebeauest is not specific in. terms, and theb is nothing in the Will to show an in- .- j ten6n or preference that the life tenant shai enjoy the specific property left, and in ieform in which it is left, it must be r.nnrerted into monev as a fund to be held an applied for the benefit of all by pay- mi I.': mgthe interest to the legatee ior lire ana f.hpnrino.inal to the remainderman. -" - f - U.-..J nrt,, Iaw tp u luuuieiiiw luoyvuii. v,w ""and alhrmed in. part, ijuardians lia-i uatmnA- ngior. j it. o-nps. hnt it does auui myj. (koui. . j noieitena larenougu. 3 iu enuieatoanaccouinoitueicwuc.ux i . j 4.1. I esu so oequeatneu m oruer uuu i.u amount of the tund, the interest or wmcn . n T t l urey cuuticu w - ; j mteljj ascertained. -0 TT1- .Dm atu T I Ne-hbors vs. Hamlin, Executor ; from Rancblpli. Judgment affirmed. Execu- t . ' crn LU1B t un I Th, olaintiff in this case alleges that he i i JU 1tf0ni,t' fnctntnr Jtl, Qf0honf ia "vrlmllv insol . auuvuan uvj.uuw9 j ;nf9I1(1 irrfiRnoh6iblL and that if he should collect certain jfunds "this affiant 3 I l,plivM that the defendant would misan- nlv 8,id monev and would not pay off the J T - . ..v , , ioKt Af t io ofrionl-" innrl ask-s that t.nfi kJ bllU ttllii!) . " defendant Executor tye required to give bond or removed. . Held. That oovertv alone will not en- i title the plaintiff to hjs prayer, neither will the latter clause of the affidavit do so, as it only alleges affiant's belief, without setting forth any facts, circumstances or reasons for his belief. . Cobb et al vs. Gray et al., from Ala- Sew note mance Judgment affirmed. Scale. In 1853 Mary, Margaret and Phoebe Rm rave their note to the plaintiff's i-ntPstate and afterwards made several pay- mPTifq which were credited thereon. In. January 1863 thev went to him to make another Davment of S30C, but there being no scace on the note to enter the credit, o nr nnffi under seal was executed for ? - - tbo balance due. lessi the S200 payment, and and to pi onbsHtntion of the old note, which was UUVW w m - y to the :makers. The new note is the subject oFlhis suit. Held, That said note is hot subject to the scale. Novation is not to be presumed .. L - m ' i- unless it clearly results from the acts of the. parties, and in this case the new note was not made for the benefit of the credi tor. nor UDon any idea of a loan of that - i i amount of money. By Reade, J.: '' ,": Summer vs. C. C. & A. Hailroad, from Cabarrus. Venire da novo. Railroads Liability of common ! carriers and bail- ees Double agency. - The theory of the plaintiff is that in November, 1864, he j delivered to the do- fendant at'its depot k Ridgcway, S. C, 85 bales of cotton to be delivered to him in Charlotte. K. C. and that same was never delivered, but was a total loss. To crt thift thanrv rAaintiff testified that; one Craiee was defendant's depot agent at Ridseway, and that he, the plaintiff,' in October 1863, employed Crai2e as hia was signed by said Mary,- Margaret mg acted in Sooa talUl ne ana his sure ishment." lhe J udge below erred in un the husband of Pioebe, and payable ties are liable for the full amount of the dertaking to annual, the action 'of the f . ..... Jt,4. 4- iUn m..J nltll rKf rA. , i aintiff s intestate, who received it in tu wu, uiuru xi6u ""y wiuiuuwtvucia,. , auuiuyiiuvi -v agent to buy cotton! for him and :thai T At iSpring Term, 1877, ' of Buncombe been passed without any notice of the ap Craiffe agreed "to (ship any cotton so Superior Court, the defendant' was con- plication, as required by Sec. 12, Art. II, purchased wherever directed." It was in and was at Ridgewaf on the 10th of FeK 1865, and that Craige said he had not snipped for want of pars. , j Held, Taking this testimony as true it does - not ; support plaintiffs claim: that Craige, as depot-agent, nad the po wer to bind the (jefendant in regard to air mat- ters germane to its business, but no$ be- yond, and certainly his power: did not ex- tend to purchasing cotton tor space or twelvemonths, mat as to ouymg ana shipping cotton he wks agent of plaintiff, , and the defendant ; is not liable for the failure" to.fperform his duty assnch. The law'Hw tinfc favor donhle ao-encies. and w,t . 7. - - 7 - if i'a c0;.iQllv rpnrphPhsihlfi; in a purr vfvvv -r " 1 like this, i A. Kaiiroaa ought to serve tne t.i: mo;a w famntat miftn iuuuViur .v, 1 . . .1. .i -' .;! ' i,fi,-t I UO Oiuerwise, a"U uie uase- mm wmw u tor -another, maices it lmponuc to encour- age it, to say the least. It appeared also that the entire 85 bales were not purchas- ed until I)ec. 1864, and hence it was im- possible to.shio before that time; and then of the road so that the .defendant could t not transport cotton. The defendant asked his jHonor to charge that this was a crood defence, which was refused. Held. Error The defendant in this case was acting in the capacity ot bailee and not common carrier, and his Honor erred in not makins: the discrimination. -f StaU ereL JIarris w Harrison et al., c xr.,r t:-.a Ilium .jvu. o uJii ij.iv;hi. iiiiiovu 111 i i . : , . . v. , c ulllty OI ln 1868 the feme plaintilt, then an in- iant reepTered ludgment against U. 15. ... . . . 1 Harrisou ; admmistrator of Mciimght, 7 w l her ormkr guardiail) for $5,997.23. , In saia garrison became tne guaraian 0f the feme plaintiff and sold her land for SI 4.71 s Nn -nsirf rt mthisr nt t ipsa sums i " i "7 77 , 5 " , r ' ties on Harrison, s guardian bond. The 1 , i. 4. . .1 , i I f. . , , t , T . " " no h in3nsn r no nnmnon isT.rn.Trtf -m arnsnn i -v- noiH atop til nsfntn to t ip mtarrf.in.n Har. f'" - ... t i. i-i-- a: U 4.: a "8n ' ' T1W" LUO Sutlluld" bULiea T , , . IV r rtticri nAivi no nn rmAn nvnonfi nna 4r vr eree b rePort U1 P" uxu m xuj, I n . L il .1. IT. - A"- 4.1. 31 Sl luul um. reueh.uu luu S"- bond are not liable, as tor monev collected I t. . I ' ?t notuuuuunwu jur, iiiuuuj icwu- ed by Harrison, administrator, and wasted by him before he made it his ward s money." And that in oi;der to make it his ward s money it must have been sep- arated and set apart, or otherwise appro- priated by tlie administrator to the guar- dian." Secondly : "That the sureties on the guardian bond are not- liable for the guardiau'saiVM? to collect the judgment in iavor;oi tne waru o,wi; agam&L me i r r ii j r& ttn : 4. 4.1 ad ministrator, if that judgment 15 still col- lee table by the ward." Heidi lhat it the administrator naa . i . til the fund and wasted it, or whether he wasted it or not, it was the duty ot the guardian to collect it, it, Deing conectame, and his failure to do so ws. a breach of I i i i name in: carnages. : Held also, That the guardian not hav- lect it out of the administration bond, She has her election to sue either set of sureties or both, and r to get judgment against both, collecting only out ot one. Held, further, That a guardian, who acts in good faith, and has his ward's ; esr- f .nJ.-i, xJ bate 17b iiMiiu, ajLiiuugu iij maj wuDioi 111 whole or in part of evidences of debt un- collected, is not liable as for "money had and received," nor for not iaving collected the money. But this is not the. rule where the investment is not well secured, fec, and where the guardian does hot act in good faith. is j 'Heidi also, That the defendants in this f ease &re liable, not only for what the gnardiaiji, Harrison, did receive from' the estate of McKnightj but fpr whatthrough negct and bad faitho failed to re oeive. f. j , , J , ' . I The case 13 reterred to the cle toroJ orm referee 9 rePort J - I ' ! . - Br Rodji aw,' J ' fStiteps; Shaft, from Buncombe. Error4 Order Reversed. : victed of fornication and adultery and I months in the . county jail'." ' On the 10th of June following, after, he had been in jail two ihbnths,the County. CommTssion- ers acting under supposed : amuomy con- f erred by; AetljJiAmbIy,chap,-- 1876- J7, hired the defendant toii .me, Laura, for the remainder, of the ierm4o which he .was sentenced Atterhw tie went at large and without restraint, re- turning to tne jau ,at ?nignc.. xne uuuu given uu uu,8aswgiau by tliec defendant .and4is .wife,and three, other persons, in. .Jbo f penal cum of . iorty aoiiars ana cpnqWei as lonows; "Whereas the above bounden rLaura U.i' , , --? .-. .-n oiiatt has this Qay hired 01 saia O5oara . , . - " . . vvuMjf,iuiwuuBy aiu, aer onais wno is now; uuuersouiK eeu- . v j - . . tence m Buncombe tail for the rest orthe -- 71, torn of sddaich-is Bovabout ovr, if the said Laura Shaft shall well a truly pay tne saia sum 01 nve aoiiars per month for said Shaft, or -at that rate for the time ho may work while a convict, then this oblisration shall be void. It is further understood that the saidjXanra Shaft is to board the said Alexander Shaft, and it, is also understood that said Alexander bhalt is Jo report to the jailor 1 ... t 11 i every evening between sunoown ana aanc, w uu ." UUb uc"-w,jBU j6 sun-up ; - ana 11 tne saia onaic remses io carry out tlvis part of the agreement, then 1 !. - 1 Ol . it J. the Seeriff or jailor is authorized to lock up and keep the said Shaft in jail for the rest of the term,' and the said Laura is . 'a.---.. ' J 1 "J omv to nav ior ine ume earn mcAauut-f "... nas woneu. At T711 Torm nf nmk Snnerior run - tv Wfor hrmht trv the at- w : o , fpntin nf hiBiTTono Jnde Schenck. bv , , m , w -j Solicitor Gudger, who moved Xhe Court j u0 remand the defendant to-jail for the I balance of the six months to which he had 1 . 1j tt tt V C Deen Benieuceu. xiia ixuiiwr ucxuj yx opinion tnaL ine eoniraci, wun u vom- UC1B VUiU evasion of the law, remanded the defend . ... . . , - , ant t0 trom wulch order e ??tona: ij aiu appeaieu. tjjj. T"i,4. 4.1, jzewz. xuai, uiuugu wic wuiibw .h- I. . .. . , ; ,1 ling to the wite was vow asxo.ner,yet tne I 1 1 Ti -.i J j.1 j. 8urenes are oouna- J-t was suggesteu iuat to allow the wite ot a prisoner ! to hire . . ... ..1 him, is to substantially allow hirn to es- r-oi i wuq uuiuoimn,ui. wv.. or jom. . nor the supreme uourt, can annul a hiring by the. County Commis sioners because the master may be, or is, J either too kind or too harsh. The selec- t;on 0f a master is confided to the Com- mi8si0ners. Tlie idea'v of the -Attorney General in the argument, and perhaps of Uho jIlfw hnlow. -was that tho ounish- ment was evaded. "But considering the I 0 T . - , nature of the defendant's crime, it may 1. . .. - De that the Commissioners ingeniousLy de vjsed to aggravate, the punishment by arming his wife, in addition to the. usual and acknowledged, i powers, ot a .wiie in . . . such cases, with those of a master paying for his work and entitled thereby to keep nitn in sight ana hearing, in this view, the; permission to return to.the jail after I . !.-t "ii j.? r i. j. i j 4.t. a mercuui anevmiiou oa wuat iwuum ym erwise have been a cruel and unusual pun that effect must bp reversed. : Gatlin vs. Tuwn?ucf I arbpror-f rom 4 .hdgecombe. J udi'tnent reversed, ara- ders' tax Power of Town (IBynum, J., dissenting) .' n- , ' '' . ' 1J : Jon i ; i iiu ougiBiaiure, iiuw , w ,:ioiu- ti, chap. 288, enacted, that on the first days I of April, July, October and J anuary in each year, any trader doing business in the town of Tarboro shall pay a . tax of one dollar for eveiy $1,000 i. worth of goods sold by him during the preceding quarter, to be collected by the officers of the town, and accounted for, as - other taxes are. This action is brought to ' resist the pay .font 0f this tax and on .these grounds: That as the traders nponV whqra alone it is imposed had paid, or areiiable to payn common with 'other property, owners in the town, . an ad valorem tax . on .their property, and had rilso, paid a license to.carrypii their trade, the additional tax J in question is not uniform - and ; is uncon stitutional. 2.f That the, act is priyate, and haying of the Cknstition,.it ; I Held, that the - tax iri. this case is nni Held, that the tax in. this casejs nni form and hot in . violation of the Consti tution, which, expressly authorizes a tax on trades, &c,. which must mean a tax in