as much excited the surprise of the court as it flattered the feelings of the witness himself. He was complimented upon his intelligent and straightforward replies, and finally questioned as to the finding of the remains of the powder in the glass, a fact to which he had sworn.

After what transpired you had no doubt that it was the arsenic which caused the illness of your master?" asked the counsel, directing a look of indignation at his own client, the prisoner in the dock. The witness assented.

"Then you know something of the properties of arsenic?" observed the other with an approving smile. The witness hesitated and replied in the negative.

"Then," suddenly thundered the barrister, flashing his eyes upon him, "how did you know the powder to be arsenic?"

The transition was so sudden that the man was carried out in a fit.

The defense was that the white powder was nothing more than the harmless sugar provided with hot punch, while the real poison had been added by another hand.

At the next assizes the prisoner and the witness had changed places, when the latter was proved the real culprit a fact suspected and worked upon by the astute counsel from the first.

A still more clever ruse was then adopted by another counsel who afterward attained to distinction, who had to examine a witness in a disputed will case. One of the witnesses to the will was the deceased man's valet, who swore that after signing his name at the bidding of his master, he then, also acting under instructions, carefully sealed the document by means of a taper by the bedside. The witness was induced to describe every minute detail of the whole process, the exact time, the position of the taper, the size and quality of the sealing-wax, "which," said the counsel, glancing at the document in his hand, "was of the ordinary red description? '*

Red sealing-wax certainly," answered the witness. 'My Lord," said the counsel, handing the paper to the judge, you will please observe that it was fastened with a wafer."

It will be within the recollection of many that a somewhat similar ruse was adopted by one of the leading counsel of the present time in a trial of political importance, the whole case of which hinged upon the question of the genuineness of certain letters. The most important witness was, while under examination, suddenly taken by surprise by being called upon to write down a particular word which occurred in the letters. The slip of paper was handed back with the word misspelt in an identically similar fashion as it appeared in the correspondence, and the clever forger was soon after detected in the witness himself.

Another instance of a laboriously produced effect being effaced by the simplest means was that of a breach of promise case.

The barrister who in this instance held the brief for injured beauty was famous for studying effect when he pleaded, and to that end arranged that his fair client should be so arranged that her charms should be well under the observation of the jury. He begau a most pathetic appeal by directing their attention to her beauty, and calling for justice upon the head of him who could wound the heart and betray the confidence of one so fair, concluding with a peroration of such pathos as to melt the court into tears.

The counsel for the defendant then rose, and after paying the lady the compliment of admitting that it was impossible not to assent to the encomiums lavished upon her face, he added that nevertheless he felt bound to ask the jury not to forget that she wore a wooden leg. Then he sat down.

The important fact, of which the fair plaintiff's coun

sel was unaware, was presently established; and the jury, feeling rather sheepish at their tears, assessed damages at the smallest amount.-Western (Eng.) Law Times.

OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS IN COURTSMARTIAL.

EV

VER since there have been courts-martial, particular stress has been placed upon the matter of administering the oath to the witnesses. In order that it may be binding and the loophole of informality may be, as far as possible, reduced, it has been the custom to swear witnesses in the manner considered most binding in their native lands. The march of civilization has, in this instance, tended toward accepting the methods for Protestants and Roman Catholics employed in this country as those best suited to impress upon a witness the solemnity and significance of the oath, though there are occasions when it became necessary to resort to other methods.

All court-martial witnesses who are Protestants are sworn by laying their right hand, ungloved, on the Bible, closed or open, while the oath is recited. Kissing the book is frequently required in addition to the laying on of the haud. Raising the right hand and keeping it raised during the recital of the oath is also a form adopted by a number. There are many who prefer to affirm rather than to swear, and those are accommodated by saying: "You do solemnly affirm," instead of "solemnly swear," the right hand being raised or placed on the Bible as before. Formerly it was required to place the right hand on the open Evangelists.

In swearing Roman Catholics the Bible is closed and has marked on the outer cover a cross, generally cut out of white paper and pasted on. Sometimes a crucifix is placed upon it, which the witness, after the oath is recited, kisses when there is any suspicion in the mind of the president of the court-martial or in that of any of its members. The witness, if a Roman Catholic, after kissing the cross, is frequently directed to cross himself.

For convenience, the oaths to be administered by the president of the court to the judge-advocate of the court, and to the witnesses that are called before it to give testimony, are often written out on paper and pasted on one of the covers of the Bible, so as to be at hand to refresh the memory of him whose duty it is to administer the oaths.

The Jews are customarily sworn by the five books of Moses and the great God of Israel, that the evidence they give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Frequently however there is no departure in the methods used with this race from that which ordinarily obtains.

The statutes in the time of George IV, King of England, contain several sections in relation to the administration of the oath in various cases, and among them are one or two referring to the Quakers as well as to the Moravians. These statutes have been em braced in our own methods of procedure, and they allow people of the sects named solemnly, sincerely and truly to declare and affirm that the evidence which they give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and so forth.

The Scotch Covenanters have always held that holding up the right hand is sufficiently binding, consequently they do not think it at all necessary either to place the hand upon the Bible or to kiss the holy book.

Mohammedans think the oath only positively binding when they are sworn upon the Koran, while the Hindoo prefers to swear by touching with his hand the foot of a Brahmin.

In this country the Chinese do not insist upon the same methods that were once in force. Very likely the china-ware dealers wish they did, as they are so much more numerous than when the following was their custom: In England, at the old Bailey prison, a Chinaman was presented as a witness in an important case, and for some time the nature of an oath and all that it implied could not be impressed upon him. Neither could the authorities quite make out just what the Mongolian did consider binding. Finally, through the aid of an interpreter, it was decided to break a When saucer over the head of the proposed witness.

this was done the Chinaman appealed to the supreme being whom he worshiped, praying that his own body might be broken into as many pieces as the saucer if the testimony he was about to give should not be the entire truth.

As a general thing, in courts-martial held in foreign waters, where native witnesses are required to give evidence, and particularly where such persons are not of the Christian faith, care is taken to ascertain and adopt the ceremony of the religions of the witnesses respectively. It is also considered a wise plan, especially in important cases, that a priest of the creed of the witnesses be present when the oath is administered in order to give it greater force and sanctity.-Washington Evening Star.

LAW STUDENT EXAMINATIONS IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT.

THE following report has been filed and the follow

ing new rule for the examination of law students adopted by the Supreme Court, Second Department, at General Term:

The committee on examination for applicants to admission to the bar for the year 1893 report that they have attended at the different sittings of the court and held examinations for applicants to practice. By reason of the increase in population in the department the number of persons presenting themselves for examination is so largely increased it is impossible to give a satisfactory examination to the applicants within the time limited. We would therefore most respectfully suggest the adoption of the rule which we herewith submit as a means of relief to future committees:

Dated BROOKLYN, December 14, 1893. RULE-Applicants for admission to the bar will attend before the examining committee at the court-house in which the term is held, on Monday, the first day of the term, at ten A. M. The papers required by the rules of the Court of Appeals to entitle an applicant to an examination shall be delivered to the clerk of the court at the place where the examination is appointed to be made, at least two weeks preceding the first day of the term. Every person intending to apply for admission to the bar will give written notice of such intention at least thirty days before presenting himself for examination, stating in such notice his name, residence, and the attorney with whom he is then serving a clerkship. Such notice to be delivered to the clerk of the Special Term in Kings county. This rule will be strictly enforced, and no person will be examined who does not comply with the same.

The rule, it is stated, was found necessary because so many students presented themselves for examination as to make inquiry into their character, standing and personal representations in the day's time allowed impossible. Hereafter such investigation can be carried on for a month, if necessary, and the examina

tion in studies can last a week if desired. The lawyers who recommend this rule have been reappointed examiners for 1894 to carry it into effect.

KENTUCKY JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.

THE judiciary committee of the House of Represen

tatives in Washington has reported favorably on

a bill to create the Eastern Judicial District of Kentucky, and to change the present judicial district and fix the time and place for holding court. Mr. Goodnight, chairman of the sub-committee, prepared the report, which is as follows:

"The business of the present district of Kentucky is so large and the courts so remote from those sections of the State where most of the litigation arises that proper and timely administration of justice demands another district. Kentucky paid during the last fiscal year over $26,000,000 internal revenue, about one-fifth of the entire amount collected by the government. Each of the proposed districts will annually pay exceeding $10,000,000 internal revenue, more than is paid by any State in the Union, other than Illinois, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and more than is paid by all the Southern States, omitting Missouri.

"During the year Kentucky manufactured over 32,000,000 pounds of tobacco, paying over $1,500,000 taxes thereon. Its distilleries used over 1,000,000 bushels of malt, over 7,500,000 bushels of corn, aggregating over 10,000,000 bushels, and more than one-third of all the material so used in the United States. There are in warehouses of the entire Union 134,000,000 gallons of whisky, Kentucky having over three-fifths thereof, or more than 87,000,000 gallons. The State has a population of more than 1,975,000, and the proposed bill will divide the population and territory about evenly.

The United States District Courts are now held at Covington, Louisville, Owensboro, Paducah and Frankfort. All these cities are on the 'Obio river except Frankfort, which is about fifty miles therefrom. The interior of the State has no United States court, and the necessity for the bill is apparent when it is known that the court will thereby be established at interior points convenient to a very large per cent of the litigation. Hundreds of cases arise out of violations of the internal revenue law, which must be tried in the United States courts, and as many prisoners and witnesses must now be transported from one hundred to three hundred miles, at great expense and inconvenience, both justice and economy seem to require another district in the State, and your committee recommends the passage of the bill."

MOONSHINERS AND REVENUE OFFICERS IN NORTH CAROLINA.

HE moonshiner does exist, but in small quantities.

Telus reached and ue proportions from the fact

that his existence usually attracts national attention. He is a dangerous kind of game to hunt; he is a sure shot; so is the revenue officer, if he lives long enough, and somebody generally gets hurt when they meet. The moonshiner does not attach much importance to killing a revenue officer, providing he doesn't get into the Federal court for it. Owing to the fact that the officers have been much abused by bad men, deputy marshals receive little sympathy from people of any class. Phillips Brooks was making a tour of the western North Carolina mountains. Riding along one day, his driver pointed to a ravine, and said: "Over there a man was killed the other day." "What for?" asked the bishop. "He was a revenue officer," answered the driver. But what had he done?" asked the bishop.

"He was a revenue officer," persisted the driver. Then it began to dawn on the bishop that being a rev enue officer was regarded as a crime sufficient to merit death.

A few years ago some deputy marshals went to a house in Mitchell county, where a man was suspected of illicit distilling. Nobody was in sight except the buxom daughter of the suspect. Where is your father?" queried one of the officers. "Dunno," was the stolid answer. "Has he been gone long?" Right smart while,' was the reply. Which way did he go?" "Never seen him leave the house." The officers saw smoke on the side of the mountain, and started in its direction. The girl picked up a horn and gave a long toot. The officers knew their game was warned. They started on however with the hope of capturing the still. You fellows had better not go up to thar,' said the girl; but they went on, and she followed. They came to the still--the fires were still burning, but the chemist had flown. "Chop it up," said the leader. A deputy marshal gave one stroke with the axe, when the sharp report of a squirrel rifle was heard, and he fell with a bullet between the ribs. "Thar," said the girl, "I told you fellers not to come over here, 'cause pap 'lowed he'd shoot the first durn man that stuck an axe in the still."-Washington Star.

THE LAW OF POKER.

EADWOOD has had several famous judges, none de

served popularity than the present incumbent of the bench of the district in which the city is located. This is Charles M. Thomas, who, the Washington correspondents say, has been promised a foreign mission by President Cleveland, to be given at an early date. It was he who loosed Mary Nevins Blaine from the galling bands that bound her to the unworthy scion of a noble sire.

Judge Thomas is a real live Kentucky colonel. He knows a hawk from a handsaw, and can tell a genuine sample of the vintage of the Cumberlands without the aid of a government gauger. He also knows a few things about the only truly American national game. That is why his decision of a case that came before him recently is of particular importance and will arouse national interest in his doings for a second time within a year. The case was that of a gentleman from the country, who, for sake of convenience, may be called the "sucker," who brought a party, for the sake of further convenience called "the other fellow," before the court to decide a disputed question regarding the value of two poker hands. Some time preceding the trial the sucker" had disputed the other fellow's" claim that three hearts beat three aces. During the dispute the other fellow" drew to his hand and laid down a revolver. While the "sucker" was still in doubt as to the superiority of "the other fellow's" hand, he released the stakes and then proceeded to call upon the Kentucky judge in Deadwood as authority to decide the dispute. And his honor, justly indignant at the attempt to violate the ethics of the favorite American pastime, promptly sentenced "the other fellow" to ten years' imprisonment, during which he will probably have sufficient time to study the matter over and concede his mistake.

The decision is indeed an important one. The value of a poker hand should be as certain in every State in the country as the value of a $10 bill. The American citizen should have a guaranty that he will receive full value for the cards he holds in every portion of the Union. Judge Thomas's decision is a timely one, and what is more, it is a good one. It emanates from a competent authority, and will stand the test of all the courts.-Omaha World-Herald.

JURISDICTION ONLY ON THE EARTH.

court-house of a small country town in Illinois

a curious gathered to wit

ness the proceedings of a divorce case begun by a young woman whose husband was town marshal of the place. A string of legal lights supported the suit on both sides, which gave evidence of a long and tedious fight.

The judge to whom the case had been assigned was enjoying his first term, and his conscientious face showed that he would discharge the duties of his office with the greatest care; but the town marshal's suit was one of universal interest in the community, and the worn look around his honor's eyes revealed sleepless nights, which he had spent in pondering over law books to hit upon a decision that would make a lasting impression upon the people, and to show them that he was ably equipped with the necessary knowledge and sense of justice for the office to which he had been elected.

The complainant's side rested. The defendant was then called to the stand, and the opposing counsel began to cross-examine him.

"Where were you married?" he was asked.
"Chicago," the defendant answered bluntly.
"How long have you been married?"
"About four weeks."

"Very well," said the lawyer. "Now, Mr. Blank, where did you go after the ceremony?"

"We came down and visited the fair."

"Came down from where?"

From the air," he answered with a chuckle.

"How did you manage to get in the air?" the lawyer asked, surprised.

"We were married two hundred and fifty-eight feet above the earth."

"How did that happen?"

"You see," he explained, "I went to Chicago to meet my wife, and we both decided that it would be a novel and inexpensive wedding tour to take a ride on the Ferris wheel, and, to improve on the idea, she afterward suggested that the ceremony be performed on the trip. I consented, and a minister came with us, and we were married at the highest point in the revolution of the wheel."

At this point the rustic maidens looked longingly at one another in anticipation of such a glorious wedding trip, while the judge, with a long breath, arose to give his first decision.

"Gentlemen," he said, "I find by the testimony that this case is beyond my jurisdiction, and I am wholly without power to decide. In the evidence it appears that the couple were married two hundred and fifty-eight feet above the level of the ground, aud there is no authority vested in me or this office by which I am given jurisdiction over events transpiring in the air.

The parties then," he continued, as he threw his head back, with an air of great importance, "will have to appear at the court of the district in which the ceremony was performed, or else remarry on solid or substantial earth instead of in mid-air, and try their case over again-Detroit Free Press.

MOTION DENIED.

HEY tell a good story about a judge who is well

here. Some time ago a man who is a snide lawyer came before him to make a motion. This man lived in one of the suburban towns, and he was not particularly scrupulous as regards his personal appearance. Indeed, on the morning on which he came into court

He waited until he had an opportunity to address the judge, and then made his motion. It was merely a perfunctory sort of an affair, to open up a case, or something of the kind, and not one in one thousand is refused by any judge. Everybody in the court-room was therefore greatly surprised when the judge thundered out, "Denied!

The man himself was completely taken aback. He rose to his feet and stammered and stuttered, and finally said: "Your honor, I hope you have not mistaken the import of this motion. It is a mere formal affair. I fail to see on what you base your decision." Denied!" roared the judge again.

"But, your honor," the lawyer went on, I think you must be laboring under a misapprehension. This is of no importance. There isn't a soul on earth who isn't willing that the motion should be granted."

"It's denied, I tell you," said the judge again. "Will your honor kindly state the grounds on which the denial is made?"

The judge straightened up in his chair, took off his eye glasses, and looked severely at the lawyer. He extended his hand, and pointed one of his long fingers at him. The motion is denied for two reasons," he said, impressively. "First: You are not a regular member of the bar, and not entitled to practice in a court of record; second, you need a bath."-Buffalo Express.

FIRE

ELECTRICITY AS A NUISANCE.

IRE, water, poisons, filth, explosives have all been brought within the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher, L. R., 3 H. L. 330, and now there must be added to the

"wild-beast list, electricity (National Telephone Co. v. Baker, '93, 2 Ch. 186); and rightly, for is not this mysterious current of all dangerous and destructive forces known to science the strongest, swiftest, subtlest? Among other eccentricities it has the property, it seems, when discharged into the ground by a tram company, of paralyzing a neighboring telephone system, and converting the messages into inarticulated murmurs, a fact which has already been discovered in America. This is certainly a grievance, for inaudibility is a distinct defect in a telephone; but it is no use having a grievance if the author of the nuisance is only doing, without negligence, as the tram company in this case was, what the Legislature has authorized him to do. In future however the Prospero of science, and the Legislature too, will have to study more closely the vagaries of this Ariel.-London Law Quarterly.

PHOTOGRAPHY IN LITIGATION.

PHOTOGRAPHY played an important part in a suit

now on trial in the United States District Court at Cincinnati. The suit is one of long standing, involving the title to one thousand five hundred acres of valuable farm lands. It is based on a deed made nearly seventy-five years ago by the owners of the land, and turns on the point whether the deed had five signatures or only four. In order to test this question it was decided to have the deed photographed, and the clerk of the court was ordered to give the matter his personal supervision. For that purpose it was taken to Washington and submitted to an expert photographer of that city. The original deed, discolored and yellow with age, showed traces of four signatures and a space where there might have been a fifth, but no trace of it. The photographing was done in the presence of the clerk of the court, who refused to let the deed go out of his sight. The negative revealed traces

of the missing signature, and when it was enlarged ten times the entire name became as plain as when first written. The court pronounced the evidence conclusive, and the result will be the reversal of a former decision and a change in the ownership of the land.-Lu Salle Tribune.

OFFICE SELLING.

THE taking or giving of a reward for offices of a pub.

lic nature is said to be bribery. "And surely," says Hawkins, “nothing can be more palpably prejudicial to the good of the public than to have places of the highest concernment, on the due execution whereof the happiness of both King and people doth depend, disposed of, not to those who are most able to execute them, but to those who are most able to pay for them; nor can any thing be of greater discouragement to industry and virtue than to see those places of trust and honor, which ought to be the rewards of those who by their industry and diligence have qualified themselves for them, conferred on those who have no other recommendation but that of being the highest bidders; neither can any thing be a greater temptation to of ficers to abuse their power by bribery and extortion, and other acts of injustice, than the consideration of the great expense they were at in gaining their places, and the necessity of sometimes straining a point to make their bargain answer their expectations."Bacon's Abridgment.

A GREAT FRENCH LAWYER.

A actor of incomparable skill, a speaker and

thinker of unquestionable power, a remarkable man, in fact, stands before you. Under his searching and crushing analysis the prisoner has no secrets. The procureur-general attacks him in front directly, describing him with a gesture, piercing his very soul with a glance, weaving around him a net of suggestive phrases, while ever and anon he makes him start by some sudden and unexpected apostrophe. "I know your name," said M. Quesnay de Beaurepaire to the mysterious Campi; “I am glad to tell it you!" And he seemed as if about to fall upon him, his finger stretched out as if pointing at the corpse. The pris oner waited, all trembling, while his adversary lengthened out his words and prolonged his silence until the culprit began to think his secret known and his real name on the point of being cast in his teeth. Then, with a disdainful smile, satisfied with the effect produced, M. de Beaurepaire finished his sentence in a tone of contemptuous irony: "I know your name, and I am going to tell it you; you are the murderer of the Rue du Regard."-The Paris Law Courts.

ABSTRACTS OF VARIOUS RECENT DE-
CISIONS.

BOUNDARIES-BROOK HAVING TWO CHANNELS.-In Pike v. Hood, decided in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, in March, 1893 (27 Atl. Rep. 139), it was held that where the boundary of lands is described in a deed as running on the bank of a certain brook, and such brook has both a main and an auxiliary channel, "brook" means the main channel, in the absence of evidence that the parties did not use the word according to its ordinary signification.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-HUSBAND AND WIFE-The negligence of a husband in control of a wagon in which he and his wife were riding, which concurs with the negligence of a railroad company in causing injury to the wife, cannot be imputed to her, so as to bar her recovery against the railroad company, merely because she was in the wagon and under his protection. Chicago, St. L. & Pittsburg R. Co. v. Spilker (Ind. Sup. Ct.), 33 N. E. Rep. 280.

DIVERSE CITI

MASTER AND SERVANT-EMPLOYMENT-ENTIRE CONTRACT. A contract of employment at a certain amount per week, payable weekly, the employment to continue for a year, is entire and indivisible, so that but one action would lie for breach thereof by discharge of the employee. Olmstead v. Bach (Md.), 27 Atl. Rep. 502.

MISCONDUCT OF JURORS.-In People v. Mitchell, decided by the Supreme Court of California, in November, 1893 (34 Pac. Rep. 698), it appeared that on a murder trial one of defendant's principal witnesses was a woman who kept a disreputable place, and with whom he lived. During the trial four of the jurors visited her place on different occasions and drank intoxicating liquor, and two of such jurors talked with her about the case. Their conduct became so notorious that the judge reprimanded the jurors, and subsequently the jury were ordered into the custody of the sheriff, where they remained from October 31 until November 3, 1893, when a verdict of conviction was rendered. The comments of the judge upon the conduct of the jury men were published in the newspapers. The sheriff also told some of the jury that "if those fellows who were down on High street hung this

ration is organized under the laws of a certain State. Where the petition for removal of a cause to a Federal court avers that one party, a corporation, is a citizen of a certain State, instead of averring that it is organized under the laws of the State, a motion to remand should be granted, although plaintiff has appeared in the Federal court and demurred generally to the defendant's answer. Frisbie v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., U. S. Circ. Ct., Ky., May 31, 1893.

INJURIES FROM A DOG.-While a man may keep a dog for the necessary defense of his house, garden or fields, yet if the dog be vicious, and the owner is previously aware of his viciousness, if he permit it to be at large upon the highway and a person be bitten by the dog, the owner is liable in damages. New Jersey v. Remhoff, 26 Atl. Rep. 860.

INSURANCE-PROOF OF LOSS.-Failure to furnish proof of loss within thirty days after a fire, in accordance with the provision of an insurance policy providing that persons sustaining loss or damage by fire shall forthwith give notice of such loss, and within thirty days thereafter render a particular and specific account thereof, does not work a forfeiture of the policy, but merely delays the date when the loss will become payable. Kahnweiler v. Phoenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn (U. S. Circ. Ct., Kans.), 57 Fed. Rep. 562.

KILLING TRESPASSING DOG.-The fact that a dog wanders from a highway upon uninclosed land, and is about to destroy growing plants there, does not justify killing him, although the land-owner may have been subjected also to repeated annoyances of the same sort from other dogs. Tenhopen v. Walker (Mich.), 55 N. W. Rep. 657.

LIFE INSURANCE-DEATH OF BENEFICIARY-RIGHTS OF PARTIES.—A life insurance policy provided that the sum named therein should be paid to the wife of the insured or "her legal representatives" within a specified time after the death of the insured, or if she were not then living, to her children. Held, that the wife having died before the husband, her interest in the policy was thereby extinguished, and the creditors of her estate have no claim on the fund, the clause authorizing payment to her "legal representatives meaning not her administrator, but some one appointed by her to receive the fund. Where there were no children living at the time of the wife's death, or when the policy became payable, the fund passed to the grandchildren by the laws of descent. Iowa Sup. Ct., Nov. 11, 1893. In re Conrad's Estate, 56 N. W. Rep. 535.

verdict must be set aside, since freedom of action by the jury had been foreclosed by the notoriety attending their misconduct, and the offending jurors could vindicate themselves only by convicting the defend

ant.

NEGLIGENCE-DEFECTIVE HIGHWAY.-In an action against a town for the loss of a horse and wagon by reason of the absence of a railing on the side of the highway, there was evidence that the driver stopped his horse about thirty feet east of a row of trees which formed the west boundary of the highway, backed it across the road to the trees, and then between the trees across a sidewalk eleven feet wide, and down a bank into a pond, where the driver and a companion were drowned. Heid, that it was error to refuse to instruct the jury that such facts, if proved, would show such negligence on the owner's part as to defeat a recovery. Lutton v. Town of Vernon (Conn.), 27 Atl. Rep. 589.

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT-EXTENSION-CONSIDERATION. A promise to pay interest is a sufficient consideration for a promise to extend the time for the payment of a note. Moore v. Redding (Miss.), 13 South. Rep. 849.

NOTE DATED ON SUNDAY EVIDENCE.-In an action on a note dated on Sunday, the burden is on plaintiff to show that it was in fact executed on a day which was not Sunday. In an action by a bank on a note dated on Sunday, its "discount register" is not admissible in evidence to show that the note in suit was a renewal of a note which matured on Sunday, and that the renewal note was made on a certain week day after its date, and dated back to the date of the maturity of the first note, according to the custom of the bank. Ala. Sup. Ct., June 15, 1893. Hauerwas v. Goodloe. Opinion by Stone, C. J.

PRECAUTIONS TO BE OBSERVED IN CROSSING RAILROAD TRACK.-In au action for damages by the next of kin of a person who was struck by a train and fatally injured in the attempt to cross a railroad track, it is not sufficient, in order to presumptively establish the absence of contributory negligence, to show that the deceased, before attempting to cross the track, turned the head in one direction or another; there must be some evidence tending to show that deceased not only turned her head, but used her eyes for the purpose of detecting an approaching train. Held, that the mere turning of the head was insufficient when it was plainly apparent from the conceded facts that the de