were attempted to be accomplished it would be contrary to the constitutional provision. We must therefore hold the effect of the act to the purpose set forth in its title. The intention of the legislature is evident, and we need no aid in arriving at what the law makers intended the act to accomplish.

Another reason why we can not adopt the theory of the relator is that even if we held, for the sake of argument, that the Act of 1906 is merged in the Act of 1909, the whole act would then contain the following: (I quote from section 2 of the Act of 1906.)

"The foregoing apportionment being based on the United States decennial census of one thousand nine hundred, each township, borough or ward created since the said census was taken, and not specifically named in this act, shall form a part of the district to which, by this act, the township, borough, or ward, of what it was at that time a part, is allotted."

The basis of apportionment is thus distinctly declared to be as of the time when the decennial census of 1900 was taken, and unless there is by subsequent acts some specific reference to a change of the boundaries of any district the districts must continue to be as they were at the time when the Act of 1906 was passed, and the basis of the apportionment must be considered as of that date. Now, October 3, 1912, judgment is entered in favor of the defendants with costs.

WEILER, ASSIGNEE, vs. GEORGE.

Promissory Notes-Payment-Evidence-Unwilling Witness -Cross-Examination.

A judgment note for $4,487, held for many years and not entered of record, may be presumed by the jury to have been paid, from the evidence showing the dealings of the parties, the financial condition of the maker and holder, the bankruptcy of the holder, the absolute assignment by him of the note for $500, and the declarations inconsist ent with the provisions of the note.

The legal plaintiff, who is also one of the defendant executors, appearing to have a personal interest in the plaintiff's claim, and prov. ing an unwilling witness, after having been called on behalf of the defendants, may be contradicted by them.

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. No. 10 September Term, 1912. John F. Weiler, Assignee

of Alfred J. George, vs. Ellen George and Alfred J. George, Executors, etc., of Jonas George, deceased. Assumpsit. Rule for New Trial,

W. L. Gillette and M. C. Henninger, for Plaintiff.
George M. Lutz and Fred E. Lewis, for Defendants.

Trexler, P. J., October 29, 1912. The suit was brought upon a judgment note dated August 8, 1895, for $4,487.00, given by Jonas George to his son, Alfred J. George, which note was not entered of record during the lifetime of the maker, and is now, after the lapse of many years, presented as a claim against his estate by John F. Weiler, assignee.

The giving of the note was not in question.

The defendants, by showing the dealings of the parties, sought to show that many things occurred between the parties to the note which were inconsistent with the relation of debtor and creditor. It appeared that the note was collectible, Jonas George being a man of means, that at times the legal plaintiff was in financial difficulties, that he took advantage of the bankrupt law, that he made an absolute assignment of the note for five hundred dollars, and that he had made declarations inconsistent with the provision of the note.

This testimony in some respects was contradicted, but it was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and, if believed, to raise the presumption of payment: Morrison vs. Collins, 127 Pa. 28; Woodward vs. Carson, 208 Pa. 144.

Objection was made that the defendants, after calling Alfred J. George, the legal plaintiff, as their witness, afterwards introduced evidence to contradict him. It appeared although the assignee of the judgment is the plaintiff on the record, Alfred George, the legal plaintiff, has an interest in the result of the suit (Testimony of John F. Weiler). He was on both sides of the case, being one of the executors of his father's estate and as such appearing as one of the defendants. He comes under the head of a necessary, unwilling or adverse witness. Grant vs. Cox, 199 Pa. 208; Citizens Gas Co. vs. Whitney, 232 Pa. 592 (599). Had his interest been disclosed earlier in the case, the plaintiff might have been requir

ed to join him as one of the real plaintiffs benefically interested in the event of the suit, and one liable to be called as of cross-examination.

Objection was further made that a number of checks given by Jonas George to Alfred George were admitted, although Alfred George in some instances explained for what purposes they were given. They were allowed to go to the jury as showing the dealing between the parties, and as circumstances inconsistent with the relation of debtor and creditor. Alfred George's explanation of the checks was for the jury.

As to the admission of the schedule of assets filed by Alfred George in bankruptcy proceedings, it is insisted that the whole record should have been admitted. The Court examined the record. Counsel failed to call my attention to any other part of the record that would throw any light on the case. The schedule of assets was complete in itself, and it was unnecessary to cumber the record with a lot of papers that were irrelevant.

This covers all the reasons filed in support of the rule for a new trial.

Now, October 29, 1912, Rule for new trial is discharged.

IN RE LIQUOR LICENSES FOR 1913.

Reasons of a Court in Granting or Refusing Licenses.

In the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace for Lehigh County. March, 1913, License Court.

Trexler, P. J., Mar. 6, 1913. In considering licenses it must be remembered that the Brooks high license act is an act to restrain and regulate the sale of liquors and that licenses are only to be granted where in the opinion of the court such licenses are necessary, for the accommodation of the public and the entertainment of strangers or travelers. As I stated last year, taking the population of Lehigh county and the number of licensed places there is no doubt that we have a sufficient number; the demands of the drinking public are so largely supplied by bottlers and wholesalers and unlicensed clubs that the saloon business in many places is becoming

unprofitable, and frequent changes are made in the ownership of such places. Whilst in some places the demand for license seems to be strong we have not yet devised any just plan by which we can reduce the number of licensed places in certain districts where we have too many. It certainly would be unfair to take away the license of one man and allow another man to continue if both equally obey the law. I think the policy should be to allow the people who now have the license to continue in business so long as they make an honest effort to obey the law and not to increase the sale of liquors nor the competition of those engaged in the business by granting any new licenses. The more competition there is the greater is the temptation to overstep the bounds set by the statute.

In the Third Ward there are two applications for the Germania Hotel. I have suggested a means of settling the matter, but until I have further knowledge in the premises, I will withhold the license.

In the Fourth Ward the application for the license of the Friendly Inn is refused. Seventh street seems to be pretty well supplied with places where the drinking public can be accommodated. There is a license at No. 28 North Seventh, one at No. 37 North Seventh, one at 133 North Seventh, one at 120 North Seventh, one at 105 North Seventh, one at the corner of Seventh and Linden streets, and the Hotel Allen and Glick Brothers on Center Square. Certainly no one need suffer in that section for want of drink.

In the Fifth Ward there are two applicants for the southeast corner of Sixth and Linden streets; Walker having withdrawn, the license is given to Peter D. Schmoyer, the present occupant. Clinton D. Strauss is granted a license for the Penn Hotel.

The license of Jacob Max in the Sixth Ward is refused. The application is made particularly for the accommodation of the Hebrew population. Samuel Roth, having a hotel at the southeast corner of Second and Tilghman streets, was in court and testified that he furnished Kosher meals at his hotel and that he could accommodate all applicants.

The Columbia Hotel license is granted to Edward E. Fenstermacher.

The application of Harry T. Nagle, No. 724 North Seventh street, is refused. There is a strong remons

trance against this place.

Norman E. Danner is granted the license for No. 381 Hamilton street, and William W. Eisenhard the license for the West End Hotel, Eleventh Ward.

S. Templeton Moyer is granted the license for Nos. 264-266 East Walnut street, Fourteenth Ward, the application of Milton J. Reinhard having been withdrawn.

The license at No. 433 Railroad street, Emaus, is granted to Edwin Camp, William G. Wyncoop having withdrawn.

In Macungie, George E. Lynn, Main street, near East Penn Railroad, is granted a license.

Peter D. Fritzinger, Main street, Slatington, and August Spaeth, American House, Slatington, new applicants for old places, are granted a license.

Edwin W. Shearer, Minesite, is granted a license.

Wilson H. Henry, Eagle Hotel, Limeport, is granted a license. The application of Harvey E. A. Smith for Hosensack is refused. This was an old stand. Hosensack is not a large place, and the necessity for the license is not apparent. If the licenses were distributed equally throughout the county we would be inclined to grant this license, but Lower Milford must suffer want in this case by reason of the fact that some townships have too many.

William E. Bean, Stine's Corner Hotel, William A. Jones, Unionville Hotel, and Alfred Jones, Levan's, are granted licenses, new applicants for old places. The license of Benjamin L. Kern for Ballietsville, is refused. North Whitehall township has eleven licensed places, and the same reasons which I gave last year are present this year.

Thomas F. Miller, Wennersville Hotel, Eckert's, John H. Beidler, Albright's Tavern, Lewis A. Steckel, Seiple's Station Hotel, Harvey T. Keinert, Vera Cruz; Charles H. Keller, Friedensville, and Harvey W. Kuhnsman, Newside, new applicants for old places, are granted licenses.

Wholesale applications:

David H. Lewis and Alfred P. Balliet, both of Coplay, are refused. John L. Horlacher, new applicant for old place, Slatington, is granted a license. Franklin H.