
    PEEBLES v. GRAHAM.
    (Filed May 6, 1902.)
    Ow petition for rehearing. Petition dismissed. For former opinion and headnotes thereto, see Peebles v. Qraha/m, 128 N. C., 222.
    
      Winston & Fuller, and Shepherd & Shepherd, for the petitioner.
    
      Graham & Graham,, and Manning & Foushee, in opposition.
   Furches, C. J.

This is a petition to rehear a case decided at February Term, 1901, and reported in 128 N. C., 222. The facts may be found in the case then reported; and as we are of the opinion that it was correctly decided when here before, and as we see no reason for sustaining the petition to rehear, it will be dismissed.

While the review of the case, in considering the petition to rehear, has led us to believe that we might strengthen the opinion as written before with additional authorities, we are content to let it stand as then written, and will only undertake to answer suck of tbe objections or reasons assigned in the petition as seem- to merit our consideration.

Tbe first of these seems to be tbe introduction on tbe trial of a map made by Ramsey, and not signed by Lyon, tbe other surveyor. Lyon seems to- bave been examined as a witness, and be testified that be helped to- make tbe survey, and it seems would bave continued to act but for tbe fact that tbe plaintiff wrote him not to do so-, and says that Ramsey asked him to- do- so- — that tbe map- contains matter that be does not know of. We suppose this is because tbe plaintiff stopped him from going on with Ramsey until tbe survey was- ended. But be does not contradict anything in tbe map-, and says tbe lines seem to be stated correctly. We do not think tbe plaintiff should bave objected to- tbe map simply because Lyon did not sign it. Tbe map was competent for tbe purpose of aiding tbe jury to understand tbe location of tbe land and to show more clearly the locus in quo./ and that was all it was used for. Tt might bave been considered, in degree, higher evidence if Lyon bad signed it, but still it was competent for tbe purpose for which it was used. Justice v. Luther, 94 N. C., 793.

But tbe plaintiff further complains, and assigns it as a ground of error, that during tbe progress of tbe trial, under tbe direction of tbe Judge, there was •written in red ink under the- word “Alston,” “as claimed by defendant.” Tbe map was a. very large- one, containing, more than a dozen tracts or boundaries of land, and this was done to- further identify tbe land in dispute; and we can not see that it prejudiced tbe plaintiff, or that it could bave bad that effect. It seems to- us that it was calculated to- aid tbe jury, and not to- confuse or mislead them. These matters were not overlooked by tbe Court in considering tbe case when here before, but were not considered of sufficient materiality to deserve a separate discussion, as we bave not tbe time to discuss what we consider immaterial matters in tbe case.

We think there was other evidence tending to sustain the defendant’s contention — for instance, that of Benehan Cameron. But we did not refer to it in the opinion for the reason we did not think it necessary to do so, as we thought the location and description given, or pointed out in the will, yretre sufficient to show that the land claimed by the defendant was intended to be and was given to him. We undertook to show this by the authorities cited for that purpose, and we are satisfied with that part of the opinion.

While the errors assigned in the petition are not treated separately and in the order stated, we think what has been said, in substance, covers them all, and the petition will be dismissed. Weathers v. Borders, 124 N. C., 610; Capehart v. Burrus, Ibid., 48; Clark’s Code, page 945 — “Judgment will not be reversed on a rehearing, when.”

Petition dismissed.

Clark, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case.  