
    STATE ex rel. N. S. WILSON v. STEPHEN T. NEAL.
    (Decided June 5, 1900.)
    
      Quo Warranto — Cleric Sugerior Court of Forsyth County— Cleric of the Western District Criminal Court for For-syth County.
    
    This ease is controlled by the decision in White v. Murray, at this term.
    Qivil ActioN in the nature of quo warranto brought by the relator to try the title of the defendant as Clerk of- the Criminal Court of Eo-rsytb County, tried before Shaw, J.3 a.t November Term, 1899, of the Superior Court of Foesyth County, upon the following
    Facts Agreed.
    It is agreed in the above^entitled cause, that at a general election held in November, 1898, N. S. Wilson, plaintiff relator, was elected Clerk of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, and duly qualified and entered upon the duties of the said office. It is also agreed that the amount of fees from civil and probate business received by the Clerk Superior Court, of Forsyth County averages $1,500 per year and the fees received from criminal actions, $1,200 per year.
    It is also agreed, that S. T. Neal, the defendant, under the provisions of Acts of the General Assembly of 1899, chap. 371 and 594-, was appointed Clerk of the Criminal Court- of Forsyth County in the Western District Criminal Court, and duly qualified as said Clerk and entered upon the duties of said office, and now duly performs the duties of said Clerk of the Criminal Court of Forsyth County as provided by said Act of Assembly, receiving tire fees and emoluments thereof.
    WatsoN, BuxtoN & WatsoN,
    HOLTON & ALEXANDER,
    
      Attorneys for Plaintiff Relator.
    
    GlenN & MaNley,
    
      Attorneys for 8. T. Neal.
    
    His Honor, upon, consideration, rendered judgment in favor of defendant S. T. Neal, and plaintiff relator, N. S. Wilson, appealed to the Supreme Court.
    
      Messrs. J-Iolton & Alexander, and Watson, Buxton & Watson, for appellant.
    
      Messrs. Glenn & Manly, for appellee.
   Furches, J.

From the facts agreed in this case it appears that the same questions of law are presented for our consideration and decision that were presented in the case of White v. Murray, decided at the present term of this Court. The opinion in that case must govern us in deciding this case, and' the judgment* of the court below, holding that plaintiff could not recover, is

Affirmed.  