standpoint of the writ of habeas corpus proceeding in Travis county. Had he sought to take advantage of this position in the state upon which the demand was made, he would have been supported by the authorities. See Ex Parte Rowland, 35 Tex. Cr. App. 108,31 S. W. Rep. 651, and authorities cited. This he did not see proper to do, so far as this record discloses, and it is too late to undertake to avail himself of that matter

in this state. In Brookin V. State, 26 Tex. App. 121, 9 S. W. Rep. 735, the court said it would not avail defendant against the prosecution that he was arrested by the sheriff of Wilbarger county, Tex., in the In. dian Territory, without lawful authority, and brought into this state, and confined in the jail of said Wilbarger county, to be tried for the offense of which he has been convicted. A person accused of crime committed in this state may be tried by courts of this state for such crime, although he may have been kidnaped in another state or territory, and brought thence to this state against his will, and without lawful authority. See, also, State v. Ross, 21 Iowa, 467; Dow's case, 18 Pa. 37; Ker v. Illinois, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, 30 L. Ed. 421, and decisions there cited. The question decided in Blanford's Case, 10 Tex. App. 627, is not at issue here.

NOTE.-Trial of Prisoner Under Illegal or Void Extradition.-Extradition is the surrender by one sovereign state to another, on its demand, of persons charged with the commission of crime within its jurisdiction, that they may be dealt with according to its laws. Bouv. L. Dict. tit. Extradition. It is based on grounds of the highest public policy between nations,-that of mutual protection. Among foreign nations it may be by comity; it is usually by treaty. Retween the states of the union it is by compact as represented by the constitution. In both cases, however, such provisions are not for the benefit of the fugitive from justice, and he has no right per se to claim any benefits from defects in the manner of their enforcement. Only one apparent exception to this rule exists in this country which we will note further.

International Extradition.-After some conflict of opinion and authority it has now been definitely settled by the United States Supreme Court that a prisoner cannot be tried for an offense other than that for which he was extradited. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407. In this case the prisoner, an officer on an American vessel, having been extradited under the treaty with Great Britain of 1842, upon a charge of murder on the high seas of one of the ship's crew, the question was raised whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to try him upon an indictment charging him with cruel and unusual punishment of the same man, such punishment consisting of the identical act proved in the extradition proceedings. It was held that the prisoner could not lawfully be so tried. See for various phases of this rule: State v. Vanderpool, 39 Ohio St. 273, 48 Am. Rep. 431; Cosgrove v. Winney, 174 U. S. 64; People v. Stout, 81 Hun, 336; Blandford v. State, 10 Tex. App. 627. In Cosgrove v. Winney, supra, the prisoner was extradited from Canada for larceny. After giving bond he returned to Canada, but came back to Michigan to stand trial for larceny. While awaiting trial he was

arrested for another offense not extraditable by treaty. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the case of United States v. Rauscher applied to the facts in this case and ordered the release of the prisoner. In People v. Stout, supra, it was held that a person extradited from a foreign government for an offense in the first degree cannot be tried for the same offense in the second degree. The reason for giving the prisoner the right to claim exemption in these eases may be found in the case of Ex parte Coy, 32 Fed. Rep. 911. In this case the prisoner had been extradited from Mexico on a charge of the murder of one, E. On being admitted to bail he was immediately rearrested and charged with the murder of one, J, for which he was not extradited. The court held that the prisoner had the right to claim exemption from trial upon any other charge than those mentioned in the extradition proceedings. The court said: "Mr. Coy is not a very important factor in considering this question. This government has entered into solemn treaty stipulations with Mexico with reference to refugees from justice. These stipulations this government cannot forget, nor can it justify their violation without justly incur. ring the contempt of the civilized world; and yet we are seriously told that Mr. Coy has waived this binding obligation on the part of the United States, and has canceled the right of Mexico to expect the government of the United States to keep its plighted faith." An interesting case arises where the fugitive is brought back by force or through strategem contrary or without regard to any treaty of extradition. Such a case was that of Ker v. People, 110 Ill. 627. Ker was indicted for larceny in the state of Illinois and fled to Peru. While negotiations for his extration were in progress, one Julian, a consul of the United States, secured his arrest without warrant, forced him on board a vessel and brought him to the United States. The court admitted the doctrine that a fugitive, when extradited, must be tried only for the crimes named in the treaty, but held that that doctrine had no application where the fugitive was brought back forcibly, and not under the terms of the treaty, or under an extradition warrant. The court further held that a fugitive from justice had no asylum in a foreign country, and if he is illegally and forcibly removed from such foreign country, that country alone has cause of complaint; he cannot complain of it. It may, therefore, be laid down as a general rule that, in criminal cases at least, the legality of arrest of a fugitive from justice, in a foreign state is not a question with which the courts are concerned, nor is it necessary to give the court jurisdiction. "Undoubtedly," says the court in the case of Ker v. People, supra, "the rule at common law is, that the court trying a party for a crime committed within its jurisdiciion will not investigate the manner of his capture, in case he has fled to a foreign state or country and has been brought back to its jurisdiction, although his capture had been plainly without authority of law. It is sufficient that the accused is in court, to require him to answer the indictment against him." This case and the rule just announced were affirmed in Ker v. Illinois. 119 U. S. 436. In Ex parte Foss, 102 Cal. 347, 41 Am. St. Rep. 182, the prisoner was voluntarily surrendered by the Hawaiian government to be tried in California for the crime of embezzlement, which was not provided for in the treaty of extradition between this country and Hawaii. The prisoner sought to be discharged on the ground that his extradition was illegal. The court denied the petition on the ground that no right

secured to the petitioner by the treaty of extradition had been violated, as that treaty does not in terms or by implication deny to the government of Hawaii the right to surrender, or deprive the United States of the right upon such surrender to receive into its custody, fugitives charged with offenses not enumerated in the treaty.

Interstate Extradition.-The exemption of a fugitive from justice in cases of international extradition from arrest or trial for any other offense than that for which he was extradited does not extend to cases of extradition between the states of the union. There has been some conflict on the question, but the great weight of authority permits a fugitive, after being restored to the demanding state to be arrested, tried and punished for any and all other crimes committed by him within its jurisdiction. Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537; State v. Glover, 112 N. Car. 896; State v. Stewart, 60 Wis. 587, 50 Am. Rep. 388; Carr v. State, 104 Ala. 48; State v. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505; State v. Kealy, 89 Iowa, 94; Lascelles v. State, 90 Ga. 347, 35 Am. St. Rep. 216; Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 131; Williams v. Weber, 1 Colo. App. 191; People v. Cross, 135 N. Y. 536, 31 Am. St. Rep. 850; Ham v. State, 4 Tex. App. 645; State v. Leidigh, 47 Neb. 126; Commonwealth v. Wright, 158 Mass. 149, 35 Am. St. Rep. 475. Contra: State v. Hall, 40 Kan. 338, 10 Am. St. Rep. 200; Ex parte McKnight, 48 Ohio St. 588; Matter of Cannon, 47 Mich. 481. This rule however, has been held not to apply to civil cases. Moleter v. State, 76 Wis. 308, 20 Am. St. Rep. 71; Compton v. Wilder, 40 Ohio St. 130. On this latter question, however, there is some conflict of authority, the following cases denying the exception just announced: Reid v. Ham, 54 Minn. 305; Browning v. Abrams, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y. S.) 172. We incline to favor the first line of authorities in sustaining an exception in this class of cases on the ground that a party guilty of fraud or false imprisonment in bringing a party within the jurisdiction of the court should not be permitted to derive a personal advantage from his own wrongful conduct. As to kidnaping fugitives from justice and bringing them by force into the jurisdiction of the court, the rule between the states is the same as between nations. The court is not concerned in any case, with the manner of making the arrest in the foreign jurisdiction nor of bring. ing the fugitive within its own jurisdiction. The prisoner can claim no right of asylum in such cases, nor does a violation of the law of the foreign jurisdiction by reason of the manner of his arrest, nor the fact that the extradition papers are vitally defective constitute any defense to his trial in the state having jurisdiction of the original offense. Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700; Ex parte Barker, 87 Ala. 4, 13 Am. St. Rep. 17; State v. Smith, 1 Bailey, L. (S. Car.) 283, 19 Am. Dec, 679; State v. Ross, 21 Iowa, 467. Thus, a fugitive extradited from another state may be held for trial, even if the arrest under the rendition proceedings was without legal authority. New Jersey v. Noyes, Fed. Cas. No. 10,164. So also in the case of Ex parte Brown, 28 Fed. Rep. 653, it was held that a fugitive from justice charged with crime will not be released on habeas corpus because he was induced by a stratagem to come within the territory where he could be properly arrested,provided the strategem used was not itself an infraction of the law. In the case of Ex parte Baker, supra, it was held that one arrested and detained under extradition papers and taken into the state where the offense was committed, will not be released on habeas corpus for the reason that the extradition papers were defective, and failed to charge

a crime, except on complaint of the authorities of the state from which the prisoner was extradited. In State v. Ross, supra, it was held that a person arrested in another state, and brought into the jurisdiction by force, by persons acting without authority, and without a requisition from the governor, may nevertheless be tried for the offense committed. To same effect, In re Norton, 15 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa. 1884) 395. In State v. Smith, supra, it was held that it is no ground for the discharge or exemption from pun. ishment of one who had been guilty of an offense against the laws of the trial state, that he was subsequently arrested with lawless violence in another state, and brought within the former jurisdiction in violation of the laws of the state in which he was arrested. The case of In re Robinson, 29 Neb. 135, is opposed to these authorities. In this case it was held that a person arrested in another state and brought into the state without extradition proceedings to answer for an offense committed in the latter state could not be held for trial for such offense.

BOOK REVIEWS.

AMERICAN STATE REPORTS, VOL. 83.

Volume eighty-three of the American State Reports contains the following important and carefully prepared monographic notes: Intersecting Lodes in Mineral Patents, p. 41; Power to Create Liens by Receivers, p. 72; Contracts Between Attorneys and Clients, p. 159; Lien of Vendor of Personalty for Purchase Price, p. 451; Mechanics' Liens on Separate Property of Married Women, p. 517; Extraterritorial Effect of Decrees of Divorce, p. 616; The Effect of Changes in By-Laws of Beneficial Associations as Against Pre-existing Member, p. 706; Validity and Effect of Agreements Respecting the Living Separate and Apart of Husband and Wife, p. 859. There are one hundred and thirty cases reported in full, and seven exhaustive monographic notes just referred to. Printed in one volume of 1.014 pages and published by the Bancroft-Whitney Company, San Francisco, Cal.

FREEMAN'S VOID JUDICIAL SALES.

This well known monograph, first published more than twenty years ago, has so expanded during this time during frequent revision that its fourth edi tion, just issued, makes a good sized law book of over 350 pages. The subjects discussed by the author, the legal and equitable rights of purchasers at void judicial, execution and probate sales, and the constitutionality of special legislation validating void sales and authorizing involuntary sales in the absence of judicial proceedings, have made the book popular with the profession. It is indeed so well known to the bar of of the United States that any extended mention of it as a standard authority on the subjects treated is quite unnecessary. It is enough to say that the present edition is larger than the last; that it has received a thorough revision by the learned author, and that the anthorities, American, and English, have been brought down to date. It is a book which can be recommended without any hesitation. Its author is Hon. A. C. Freeman of San Francisco, who has written treatises on Judgments, Executions Co-tenancy and Partition, and editor of American Decisions. The book is printed on excellent paper, well bound in law sheep. Published by Central Law Journal Company, St. Louis.

University of Missouri.

JOHN D. LAWSON.

TEXAS....... .7, 11, 24, 31, 59, 74, 76, 87, 105, 106 UNITED STATES C. C., 10, 33, 36, 39, 46, 47, 58, 64, 79, 91, 97 UNITED STATES C. C. OF APP., 9, 16, 35, 40, 45, 48, €0, 69, 75, 81, 93, 94, 98, 101, 104, 107

UNITED STATES D. C................... .5, 6, 17, 21 22, 28, 99 UNITED STATES S. C.................18, 19, 20, 23, 29, 30, 95 VIRGINIA ...... .............................................8, 27, 37, 51, 71, 86, 88, 89, 100, 109 1. ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL Dismissal on Demurrer. An action is not pending after order dismissing the complaint on demurrer.-Burnett v. Southern Ryr Co., S. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 679.

2. ACCOUNT-By Creditors.- Persons who have received a portion of the funds of a corporation, to which a creditor of the corporation must resort for the payment of his claim, or who have connived at a diversion of such fund, are proper parties to an action by the creditor for an accounting.-Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co., Cal., 67 Pac. Rep. 759.

3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT-Before Clerk Who Executed the Paper.-A deed executed by a clerk of a court cannot be acknowledged before him.-Leftwich v. City of Richmond, Va., 40 S. E. Rep. 651.

4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT-Taken Out of County.-Under Code Civ. Proc. § 179, justice's acknowledgment to mortgage which shows that he took it out of his county is insufficient to entitle the mortgage to record.-Middlecoff v. Hemstreet, Cal., 67 Pac. Rep.

7. ANIMALS-Negligence in Permitting Animals to Run at Large.-Under the stock law, the owner of animals prohibited from running at large is conclusively negligent, if they so run, and liable for their trespass on premises sufficiently fenced to turn animals au. thorized to so run.-Frazer v. Bedford, Tex., 66 S. W. Rep. 573.

8. APPEAL AND ERROR-Amount in Dispute.- Where plaintiff sued to recover $1,000, and defendant corporation by its answer admitted a liability of $1.40, upon appeal by defendant from a judgment against it for $200, the amount in controversy was less than $200. -Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Landram, Ky., €6 S. W. Rep. 599.

9. APPEAL AND ERROR-Commitment for Contempt.An order in an equity cause, committing a witness, not a party to the suit, for contempt in refusing to testify before the cause is at issue, is final and reviewable on a writ of error sued out by the witness.Flower v. MacGinniss, U. S. C. C. of App., Second Cir. cuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 877.

10. ARBITRATION AND AWARD-Right to Submission Before Bringing Suit.- Where a contract provided that matters of difference shall be submitted to arbitration, but does not provide that no suit can be brought thereon without such submission, such condition is not imported into the contract by necessary implica tion.-Green v. American Cotton Co., U. S. C. C., W. D. Tenn., 112 Fed. Rep. 748.

11. ASSAULT AND BATTERY-Acquittal of Aggravated Assault as Affecting Charge of Simple Assault.-A person acquitted of aggravated assault on an alleged officer cannot be convicted of a simple assault in resisting arrest by such officer.-Brown v. State, Tex., 66 S. W. Rep. 547.

12. ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS-COM. position Creditor. Action to compel accounting by assignee for benefit of creditors cannot be maintained by a creditor whose claim has been paid in accordance with terms of composition agreement.-Phenix Nat. Bank v. Keim, 74 N. Y. Supp. 666. 13. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - Liability for Failure to Appeal.-Attorneys, who had agreed to prosecute to couclusion protest against imposition of customs duties, held liable for failure to appeal from decision of appraisers.-Childs v. Comstock, 74 N. Y. Supp. 643. 14. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-Right to Bind Client by Admission.-An attorney under a general retainer to prosecute a claim against a person cannot, in the ab. sence of a reference by the client of the person to him for information, bind the client by admission of advice.-Lytle v. Crawford, 74 N. Y. Supp. 660.

15. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT-Right to Fee where Relief is Obtained Without Suit.-Attorneys were entitled to the contract price for their services, where they ob. tained the desired relief without bringing suit, which it was contemplated, when the contract was made, would have to be brought.-Browder v. Long's Exr., Ky., 66 S. W. Rep. 600.

16. BANKRUPTCY-Binding Effect of Adjudication of Involuntary Bankruptcy.-An adjudication of involuntary bankruptcy, duly entered on default for want of an answer to the petition, is as binding on the bank. rupt and creditors as one entered upon a hearing, and is conclusive of the commission of the acts of bank. ruptcy charged in the petition.-In re American Brew. ing Co., U. S. C. C. of app., Seventh Circuit., 112 Fed. Rep. 752.

17. BANKRUPTCY--Deducting Preferences.-A prefer. ence received by a creditor of a bankrupt cannot be deducted from a fund in court awarded to such cred. itor as the owner, where he is not seeking to prove a claim as a creditor of the estate. - In re West Norfolk Lumber Co., U. S. D. C., E. D. Va., 112 Fed. Rep. 759. 18. BANKRUPTCY Disbursements of General As signee.-A bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction to de

termine the claim of a general assignee to retain out of the bankrupt's estate disbursements or commis. sions. Louisville Trust Co. v. Comingor, U. S. S. C., 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298.

19. BANKRUPTCY-Dissolution of Corporation as Act of Bankruptcy.-A corporation which, while insolvent, has permitted some of its creditors to obtain prefer. ences through legal proceedings,and has then, through its officers and stockholders, procured its dissolution, and thereby put it out of its power to discharge such preferences, and actually hindered and delayed other creditors, has committed an act of bankruptcy within .the meaning Bankr. Act 1898, § 3a, cl. 3.-Scheuer v. Smith & Montgomery Bock & Stationery Co., U. s. C. C. of App., Fifth Circuit, 1:2 Fed. Rep. 407.

20. BANKRUPTCY-Payment of Corporation to President in Advance.-Payment by a corporation of checks Issued to its president for present small advances of money, made at times when the company was short of funds, held not to be preferences which constituted acts of bankruptcy.—In re Union Feather and Wool Mfg. Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Seventh Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 774.

21. BANKRUPTCY-Principal of Surety. - Under the bankruptcy law, the remedy of a surety who has not paid the debt cannot be that his principal be adjudged a bankrupt.-Phillips v. Dreher Shoe Co., U. S. D. C., M. D. Pa., 112 Fed. Rep. 404.

22. BANKRUPTCY-Voluntary and Involuntary Peti. tions Pending at Same Time.-A person should not be adjudged a bankrupt on his voluntary petition, where an involuntary petition is pending, and administra tion under the voluntary petition will render prefer. ences complained of in the involuntary petition unassailable by reason of the expiration of the four months' limitation fixed by Bankr. Act. § 60.-In re Dwyer, U. 8. D. C., D. N. Dak., 112 Fed. Rep. 777.

23. BANKS AND BANKING-Right of Receiver to Recover Assessment on National Bank Stockholder. - An objection that the statute of limitations will not bar the right of creditors of a national bank to enforce the individual liability of a shareholder cannot be raised by a receiver of a national bank in an action to recover an assessment on a stockholder.-McDonald v. Thompson, U. S. S. C., 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 297.

24. BILLS AND NOTES-Collection of Provision for Attorney's Fees.-Where a note provided for an attorney's fee of 10 per cent., should “judicial proceedings" be used in collecting it, such fee was not collectible on payment of the note by an assignee for benefit of creditors.- Briam v. Sullivan, Tex., 66 S. W. Rep. 572. 25. BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS-Application of Payments After Insolvency.-Payments by a borrowing member as dues on stock cannot by operation of law be applied to the extinguishment of the debt and interest after the association has become insolv. ent.-Vinton v. National Building & Loan Assn., Ky., 66 S. W. Rep. 510.

26. BURGLARY-Recent Possession of Stolen Goods.Recent possession of stolen goods taken by burglars is prima facia evidence of the burglary, as well as of the larceny.-State v. Yandle, Mo., 66 S. W. Rep. 532.

27. CANALS-Title of Easement in Right of Way.—A canal company, acquiring land by condemnation under Acts 1831-32, p. 79, § 29, and Acts 1835-36, p. 84, held to acquire a title in fee which it could convey to its successors, and not a mere easement in a right of way. -Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Walker, Va., 40 S. E. Rep.

commerce clause of the United States constitution. -Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Eubank, U. 8. S. C., 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277.

30. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Assessments for Public Improvements.-An assessment for a street improvement, under a city charter providing for assessment on abutting lots of the full cost of the improvement of half of the street in front of and abbutting on such lot, and a proportionate share of the cost of improving street intersections, held not the taking of prop. erty without due process of law; due notice and opportunity to contest being given.-King v. City of Portland, U. s. S. C. C., Sup. Ct. Rep. 290.

31. CONTRACT-Agreement Between Competing Bidders. An agreement between competing bidders, providing for a division of profits, held not to render the successful bidder liable to the other under the agreement.-Daily v. Hollis, Tex., 66 S. W. Rep. 596.

32. CONTRACTS-Continuing Publication of Advertisement After Notice.-The purchaser of a newspaper, including an account against an advertiser whose advertisement was being published under a verbal agreement with the former owner terminable on notice, could not collect for publication continued in good faith after such notice.-Ingalls v. Burlingame, N. H., 51 Atl. Rep. 175.

33. CORPORATIONS-Right of Stockholder to Set Aside Deed by Corporation.-A stockholder cannot question a deed of the company, in the absence of showing that the corporation itself has failed, after a proper application to it, to sue to set the deed aside.-Savings & Trust Co. of Cleveland v. Bear Valley Irr. Co., U. S. C. C., S. D. Cal., 112 Fed. Rep. 693.

34. CORPORATIONS-Surrender Because of Unauthorized Issuance.-In a suit to compel a surrender of a stock certificate, the holder held not obliged to surrender it because of the unauthorized issuance, without regard to whether or not he was entitled to it.Lakewood Gas Co. v. Smith, N. J., 51 Atl. Rep. 152.

35. COSTS-Decree to Pay Half the Costs.-Where, in a proceeding to determine the priorities of certain liens, the appellants were successful only in part, a provision in the decree that they pay half the costs should be disturbed.-Swift & Co. v. Kortrecht, U. S. C. C. of App., Sixth Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 709.

36. COURTS-Sale of Mortgaged Property in Ancillary Suits. Decrees for the sale of mortgaged property in foreclosure, entered in ancillary suits, should conform so far as may be to that of the court of primary juris. diction as to the method of sale.-Central Trust Co. of New York v. United States Flour Milling Co., U. S. C. C., S. D. N. Y., 112 Fed. Rep. 371.

38. CRIMINAL LAW-Meaning of Word "Knowing."The word "knowing," in a criminal statute, means mental assurance and knowledge, and must be clearly shown by circumstances which leave no reasonable doubt on a fair mind.-State v. McBarron, N. J., 51 Atl. Rep. 146.

39. CUSTOMS DUTIES-Protest Before Ascertainment of Duty.-A protest by an importer against the impo. sition of a duty on merchandise, filed before the duty has been ascertained and liquidated, cannot be con. sidered.--In re Bailey, U. S. C. C., E. D. Pa., 112 Fed. Rep. 413.

40. DEPOSITIONS-Before Cause is at Issue.-Under Rev. Stat. § 863, and Sup. Ct. Rule 68, a witness in an equity case cannot be compelled to testify before the cause is at issue.-Flower v. MacGinniss, U. S. C. C. of App., Second Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 377.

41. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION-Children of Deceased Brother.-Nephews, whose father predeceased their estate uncle, held entitled to their distributive share without setting off debts due the intestate by their father.-Stokes v. Stokes, S. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 662.

42. DETINUE-Proof of Joint Ownership.-Where, in an action of detinue, the evidence of plaintiff shows affirmatively that one not a party to the suit is a joint owner of the property with them, their action must fall.-Bolton v. Cuthberth, Ala., 31 South. Rep. 358.

43. EJECTMENT-Claim Under Defective Power of Sale. Where plaintiff sues at law to recover land, and defendant claims possession under a defective power of sale in a mortgage, on dismissal, plaintiff cannot complain that mortgage was not foreclosed as asked by defendant.-Sims v. Steadman, S. Car., 40 S .E. Rep. 677.

44. ELECTIONS-Proof of Election Frauds.-To sus tain a conviction under Gen. St. p 1334, of procuring the name of an unqualified voter to be registered, it must be shown that defendant procured such registra tion and knew at the time that such person was not entitled to vote at the next election.- State v. McBarron, N. J., 51 Atl. Rep. 146.

45. ELECTION OF REMEDIES-Replevin and Action for Malicious Trespass.-An action for malicious trespass in seizing plaintiff's goods under an execution against another is not inconsistent with a replevin suit to recover such goods, so as to render bringing replevin an election of remedies.- Crockett v Miller, U. S. C. C. of App., Eighth Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 729.

46. EMBEZZLEMENT - Requisites of Complaint. - A complaint charging that defendant wrongfully, unlaw. fully and feloniously appropriated and converted to his own use the money of his employer which had been intrusted to him, and that he "embezzled the same," is sufficient charge of embezzlement, though the word "fraudulently" is not used.-In re Grin, U. s. C. C., N. D. Cal., 112 Fed. Rep. 790.

47. EMINENT DOMAIN-Against Non-Resident Owners.Property within the limits of a city, owned by a nonresident, may be dealt with by the city as though it belonged to a resident, and the owner is bound to take notice of an ordinance affecting such property, when it has been duly promulgated as required by law, whether state or municipal.-McIntosh v. City of Pittsburg, U. S. C. C., W. D. Pa., 112 Fed. Rep. 705.

48. EVIDENCE Letterpress Copies. Letterpress copies of documents in the hands of the adverse party held properly admitted in evidence.-Illinois Car and Equipment Co. v. Linstroth Wagon Co., U. S. C. C. of App., Seventh Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 737.

49. EVIDENCE-Right to Introduce Transcript or Copy of Instrument.-U nder Code 1896, § 992, a transcript of the record of a conveyance is not admissible until the party has shown the original is not in his possession or control.-Hammond v. Blue, Ala., 31 South. Rep. 357.

50. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Appealing In. dividually.-Under Code, art. 5, § 24, a plaintiff who sued individually and as administrator for two parties held entitled to appeal individually and as administrator for one of the parties, without appealing as administrator for the other.-Buchanan v. Patterson, Md., 51 Atl. Rep. 169.

51. EXECUTION-Liability of Life Insurance Company on Policy of Debtor.-A provision in a life policy for paid-up insurance held not to make the insurance company's liability thereunder subj ct, under Code, § 3601, to the lien of a fieri facias issued against the insured.-Boisseau v. Bass' Admr., Va., 40 S. E. Rep. 647. 52. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-Liability for Rents Collected.-Administrator's bond held not liable for rents collected by administrator.-Jennings v. Parr, S. Car., 40 S. E. Rep. 683.

53. EXTRADITION-Requisites for Rendition of Foreign Criminals.-The jurisdiction of a Unites States commissioner to examine and commit one who has committed crime in a foreign country, and certify the proceedings to the secretary of state, is not dependent on the fact that he issued the warrant of arrest. In re Grin, U. S. C. C., N. D. Cal., 112 Fed. Rep. 790.

54. FORGERY-On Third Person in Employ of Another. Where an indictment charges that defendant passed a forged check on a third person with intent to defraud, he may be convicted, though the proof shows that the third person was in the employ of another, and that the goods and money given in exchange belonged to the employer.-State v. Eaton, Mo., 66 S. W. Rep. 539.

55. FRAUD-Inadequacy of Consideration.-Whether the consideration of a contract is so inadequate as to suggest fraud cannot be considered upon demurrer, but only upon a plea of fraud.-Price's Admx., Ky., 66 S. W. Rep. 529.

56. FRAUD-Pleading Ignorance.-Defendant, being secretary and treasurer of a corporation at the time he sold his shares to plaintiff, cannot claim that his representations as to the financial condition of the corporation were made by him in ignorance of the fact that they were false.-Drake v. Holbrook, Ky., 66 S. W. Rep. 512.

57. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE - Wrongful Attachment. That an attachment is sued out without just ground therefor is a wrong against the debtor, but such attachment is not vulnerable to attack on that ground by ordinary creditors' bill by other creditors.Meyrovitz v. Glaser, Ala., 31 South. Rep. 360.

58. GUARANTY-What is Sufficient Acceptance.-Information received from any source that goods were being delivered to the agent upon the faith of the guaranty was sufficient notice of acceptance to bind the guarantor.-Greer Machine Co. v. Sears, Ky., 66 S W. Rep. 521.

59. HIGHWAYS-Long-Continued User.-A road may be shown to be a public road by evidence of long-continued use, assignment of hands to work it by the proper authorities, and the like.-Race v. State, Tex., 66 8. W. Rep. 560.

60. HOMESTEAD-Conveyance of Land by Deed Absout e But in Fact as Security.-The conveyance of land by a deed absolute in form, but in fact as security, is not a waiver of the right to claim the premises as a homestead, as against one claiming a lien thereon under a judgment against the grantor.-Swift & Co. v. Kortrecht, U. S. C. C. of App., Sixth Circuit, 112 Fed. Rep. 709.

61. HOMICIDE-Self-Defense in Disarming Opponent.If deceased was about to commit a felony, defendant had the right so disarm him, but had no right to use more force than reasonably appeared necessary for that purpose.-Burton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 66 S. W. Rep. 516.

62. INJUNCTION - Against Underpinning Private Buildings. An owner of property abutting on a street held not entitled to enjɔin the city and board of rapid transit commissioners from entering his premises and underpinning his buildings.-March v. City of New York, 74 N. Y. Sup. 630.

63. INTEREST-Interest on Insufficient Payments of Interest.-Refusal to allow interest on three payments on a mortgage, two of which were insufficient to pay the interest on the mortgage, and the third appeared as a credit as of the date of the order of court author izing it to be so applied, held not error.-Hopper v. Williams, Md., 51 Atl. Rep. 167.

64. INTERNAL REVENUE-Postal Card Notice by Ware housemen.-Postal card notice, sent by warehouse company on receipt of goods to the assignee, held not to constitute a warehouse receipt, to be stamped, under the war revenue act of 1898-Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. McClain, U. S. C. C. of App., E. D. Pa., 112 Fed. Rep. 787.