(E) Competency. testify in explanation, as to whether sheets and bulletin made a part of contract with sub-148 (N.J.) That contrary inference may be contractor included work done by plaintiffs.- drawn from testimony is not alone a test of Morrow v. Arthur, 106 A. 356. its competency. Ferris v. McArdle, 106 A. 460. A witness had the right to explain the circumstances under which a letter was written. -Id. 116 (Vt.) In automobile collision case, where plaintiff's evidence showed that defendant's lights were not dimmed as required by G. L. 4651, defendant's testimony that his battery was weak, and that he could not start his car upon it, is admissible.-Tyrrell v. Goslant, 106 A. 585. 117 (Md.) In action on contract to repurchase stock, excluding a letter and telegram offered to corroborate defendant is not erroneous, where their value would have depended upon defendant's evidence as to time and place of their receipt.-Bracey v. McGary, 106 A. 622. 117 (Vt.) In an action for assault and battery in which testimony for plaintiff tended to show that he was attacked by defendant and stabbed, what defendant's son said concerning a knife in answer to defendant's question, "Did you get the gun?" asked between time of the assault in question and a prior altercation had about 15 minutes before, was admissible only in case the evidence tended to show that the son gave the knife to defendant.-Calliguiri v. Marro, 106 A. 780. (B) Res Gestæ. 150 (Vt.) In an action for damages arising out of a collision between an automobile and a wagon, a photograph of the scene of the accident was not inadmissible on the ground that the team and automobile were not the ones involved in the accident, and because the photograph amounted to no more than an experiment; experiments not necessarily being excluded. Thayer v. Glynn, 106 A. S34. V. BEST AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE. 158(1) (Vt.) In an action against a railroad company for personal injuries received by plaintiff from being crushed under his falling blacksmith shop when demolished by defendant's car, objection to question asked of a hospital nurse, following the production of records in evidence, as to the hospital rules requiring a chart containing the treatment the nurses had given plaintiff, on the ground that any such rules should be produced, was correctly sustained, as not proper cross-examination, and the ground had already been fully covered.-Le Clair v. Montpelier & W. R. R. Co., 106 A. 587. 158 (8) (Vt.) Where testator was adjudicated incompetent in guardianship proceedings a month after execution of will, the adjudica123(11) (N.H.) In an action against a rail- tion and appointment of guardian could be road for damage to an automobile in a cross-proved only by the record.-In re Clogston's ing collision, statement of the locomotive engi- Estate. 106 A. 594. neer immediately after the accident, made to plaintiffs' employé, that he thought he was far enough away from the crossing, so he could avoid striking the automobile, held admissible as part of the res geste.-Chellis Realty Co. v. Boston & M. R. R., 106 A. 742. (C) Similar Facts and Transactions. 129(4) (Md.) In an action on a contract for the repurchase of corporate stock, the delivery of the contract being denied, a printed offer generally made to the public, wherein the repurchase of such stock as plaintiff had bought was guaranteed, was admissible.-Bracey v. McGary, 106 A. 627. 178(9) (Vt.) In an action on a fire policy which had been lost, the insured is not bound to accept what the defendant insurer said was a copy, and may proceed in its own way to prove policy.-Williams Mfg. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 106 A. 657. 184 (Vt.) In an action on a fire policy which had been lost, it was permissible for the insured to show that the policy was in the possession of mortgagee before the fire, that after the fire the mortgagee delivered the policy to the insured, whose president left it with adjusters and had not seen the same thereafter.-Williams Mfg. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 106 A. 657. VII. ADMISSIONS. eral. 129(6) (Md.) In action by buyer of sulphuric acid against manufacturing seller for (A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in Genshortage in deliveries, testimony of a witness connected with the buyer company as to whether or not the buyer did not refuse to take a certain percentage of its quota in an earlier year held inadmissible as under a period of a different contract and different companies.-Davison Chemical Co. v. Baugh Chemical Co., 106 A. 269. In action by buyer of sulphuric acid against manufacturing seller, testimony of manager of third company as to whether seller company made full deliveries to his company under its contract during a certain period involved held inadmissible.-Id. 131 (Md.) In action by buyer of sulphuric acid against manufacturing seller for shortage in delivery, testimony as to whether or not buyer company had in past taken its full quota under its contracts, or, under a certain clause, had taken only part, held inadmissible on ground conditions might have been altogether different.-Davison Chemical Co. V. Baugh Chemical Co., 106 A. 269. 140 (Vt.) In an action for damages arising out of a collision between an automobile and a wagon, it was immaterial within what distance defendant automobile owner could stop a similar car of the same make formerly owned by him by use of the emergency brake: the defendant having expressly stated that he had never tested or used the emergency brake on the car involved in the accident.-Thayer v. Glynn, 106 A. 834. 213(4) (Vt.) In an action for damages arising out of a collision on a highway, plaintiff was properly allowed to testify that at the time of the collision the defendant made an independent and voluntary offer to pay the damages, being an indirect admission of liability.Thayer v. Glynn, 106 A. 834. (C) By Grantors, Former Owners, or Privies. 229 (Pa.) One who claims title to property through another regardless of the nature of the transfer, whether by the act of the parties or an act of law, is bound by earlier acts or dec larations of his predecessor and takes the title cum onere.-Dawson v. Coulter, 106 A. 187. All acts and declarations of owner of land made during continuance of his interest tending to show character or extent of his possession or interest, or the location of boundaries, are competent evidence, not only against himself but also against those who claim through or under him.-ld. . IX. HEARSAY. 317(2) (N.H.) Where defendants testified that plaintiff was not employed by them until after the date of alleged injury, question whether before hearing such testimony plaintiff heard suggestions from any source of a different date for the accident than that alleged was properly For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER lease, to which the photographers were not parties.-Wheat v. Carter, 106 A. 602. (B) Invalidating Written Instrument, 428 (Conn.) Parol evidence is admissible to show that a writing purporting to be a contract never came into existence as such, or has ceased to be a contract.-J. E. Smith & Co. v. W. M. Hurlburt Co., 106 A. 319. (C) Separate or Subsequent Oral Agree excluded as calling for hearsay testimony. Boulanger v. McQuestin & Lewis, 106 A. 492. 317(2) (Vt.) In an action for assault and battery in which testimony for plaintiff tended to show that he was attacked by defendant and stabbed, what defendant's son said in answer to defendant's question, "Did you get the gun?" asked between the time of the assault in question and a prior altercation had about 15 minutes before, was immaterial to any issue in the case and hearsay.-Calliguiri v. Marro, 106 A. 780. 320 (Vt.) In action by employé of company 441(1) (Vt.) Parol evidence may be receivfor false representations by officers as to its ed for the purpose of showing an additional financial condition inducing him to purchase oral agreement, entered into at the time of stock, testimony of plaintiff on redirect, re- making the written contract, not inconsistent ferring to statement of bills payable, made by therewith.-Wood v. James, 106 A. 566. him at defendant's request, that after he pur-444(6) (Conn.) Where a bill of exchange chased the stock he found the statement was incorrect, held not inadmissible as resting on hearsay testimony.-Smith v. Martin, 106 A. 666. X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. (C) Private Writings and Publications. 352(3) (Pa.) On a bill to enforce personal liability of directors of insolvent corporation who had declared dividends out of capital, the corporate books were properly admitted in behalf of plaintiff, as they were prima facie evidence against corporation and its directors.Fell v. Pitts, 106 A. 574. ment. was accepted, "payable when plastering is 448 (Vt.) Agreement in clear and unambiguous language is to be interpreted by its own terms, without resort to parol evidence of what was said between the parties during the nego352(3) (Vt.) In an action by an employé of tiations.-Wood v. James, 106 A. 566. a company against the officers and stockholders 450(10) (Conn.) An acceptance of a bill of for misrepresentations inducing the purchase of stock, where a defendant had used an annual statement of the company in representing its financial condition, such statement was admissible in evidence against him.-Smith v. Martin, 106 A. 666. exchange, "payable when plastering is done," is not ambiguous, and parol evidence is inadmissible to show an agreement as to the person by whom the plastering was to be done.-J. E. Smith & Co. v. W. M. Hurlburt Co., 106 A. 319. of Obligation. 359(3) (Vt.) In an action for damages (E) Showing Discharge or Performance arising out of a collision between an automobile and a wagon, a photograph of the scene of 464 (Conn.) Parol evidence is admissible to the accident was not inadmissible on the ground show that a writing purporting to be a conthat the team and automobile were not the ones involved in the accident, and because the pho- & Co. v. W. M. Hurlburt Co., 106 A. 319. tract has ceased to be a contract.-J. E. Smith tograph amounted to no more than an experiment; experiments not necessarily being excluded.-Thayer v. Glynn, 106 A. 834. (D) Production, Authentication, and Ef fect. 379 (Vt.) In antomobile collision case, a civil engineer who surveyed place of collision, and made the plat given in evidence, but did not see the accident, may testify that defendant showed him tracks of one of automobiles concerned. Tyrrell v. Goslant, 106 A. 585. 383(6) (Pa.) On a bill to enforce personal liability of directors of insolvent corporation who had declared dividends out of capital, the corporate books were properly admitted in behalf of plaintiff, as they were prima facie evidence against corporation and its directors. Fell v. Pitts, 106 A. 574. XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVI- XII. OPINION EVIDENCE. (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witnesses in General. 471(14) (Vt.) In an action for damages for personal injuries, plaintiff was properly allowed to testify that since the accident he was nervous and did not like to drive in the nighttime; such testimony being nothing more than his way of describing the nervous condition in which the accident left him.-Thayer v. Glynn, 106 A. 834. 473 (Vt.) In son's contest of father's will involving question of whether will not bequeathing property to sons was an unnatural disposition, witness was properly permitted to testify that she never saw son misuse or abuse his father; such conclusion being admissible where facts are incapable of being presented with proper force to any one but the observer himself. In re Clogston's Estate, 106 A. 594. 488 (Vt.) In an action on a fire policy which the insured claimed covered a veneer mill that was destroyed, testimony by the foreman in the mill, who described the size and 397 (2) (Vt.) The presumption of law is that a writing contains the whole contract.-construction of the mill as to its value, is not Wood v. James, 106 A. 566. 419(14) (Del.Ch.) Where a bond, with warrant of attorney to confess judgment, does not show that it was given to secure future advances to the obligee, that it was so given may be shown by evidence aliunde.-O'Connor v. Caplan, 106 A. 48. objectionable on the ground that the value was shown piecemeal, where the witness did not testify as to the value of any of its parts, but, having testified as to his knowledge of the mill, gave an estimate as to its value as an entity.-Williams Mfg. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 106 A. 657. 424 (N.H.) When considering the issue501(3) (Vt.) In will contest probate judge whether an injured servant's release to his em- testifying to proceedings in which testator ployers is a bar to his suit against X-ray was adjudicated an incompetent was erroneousphotographers who burned him, it is permissi-ly permitted to give his opinion as to testator's ble to consider the servant's testimony, even sanity, based on testator's testimony at guardthough it may contradict the terms of the re-ianship proceedings, which probate judge could not in substance repeat while testifying in will contest. In re Clogston's Estate, 106 A. 594. 501(7) (Pa.) On issue as to fraud in misrepresenting net income from apartment house exchanged by plaintiff for defendants' farm, the exclusion of a witness who undertook to base an estimate of depreciation of value solely upon a difference in net rentals was not error, as rental values can never constitute an exclusive standard as to the market value of the ty.-Cunningham v. Ray, 106 A. 884. 42 (Md.) Appellees by accepting, reviewing, and suggesting amendments and additions to bills of exceptions did not waive their right to object to the signing of the bills of exceptions, where they notified counsel for the appellant when the bills of exceptions were submitted to them that they did not waive their right to object that they were presented too late.Wegefarth v. Weissner, 106 A. 854. proper-44 (Me.) Where entry of "exceptions filed and allowed" was made upon docket of court with consent of both parties before close of term, under Rev. St. c. 82, § 55, the presentation of a bill of exceptions will be construed to have been made upon date of entry.-Borneman v. Milliken, 106 A. 345. (D) Examination of Experts. 555 (N.H.) A question to a physician witness calling for the history of the accident given him by plaintiff more than a year after the accident is properly excluded, where the inquiry is under the pretext of offering evidence of the foundation of the physician's opinion for the purpose of violating general rule excluding prior statements of the party.-Boulanger v. McQuestin & Lewis, 106 A. 492. XIV. WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY. 597 (N.H.) Juries are not permitted to determine the rights of litigants by guess and conjecture.-Ingerson v. Grand Trunk Ry., 106 A. 488. EXCEPTIONS, BILL OF. See Appeal and Error, EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY. See Appeal and Error, 882; Brokers, 54; Evidence, 501; Fraud, 59; Judgment, 68; New Trial, 104. EXECUTION. 261; See Certiorari, 14; Corporations, III. ISSUANCE, FORM, AND REQUI- 699, 956, 1078; 75 (Del.Ch.) If an execution on a judgment I. NATURE, FORM, AND CONTENTS IN GENERAL. 20 (Md.) Bill of exceptions embracing a motion to strike out certain evidence and rulings on prayers is not in approved form, and only the rulings on prayers will be considered. -Morrow v. Arthur, 106 A. 356. '. II. SETTLEMENT, SIGNING, AND FILING. 103 (Del. Ch.) It an execution on a judgment issues before the debt embraced in the judgment becomes due, it is not void, but voidable merely, and cannot Le attacked collaterally by another creditor of the defendant in the execution.-O'Connor v. Caplan, 106 A. 48. IV. LIEN, LEVY OR EXTENT, AND CUSTODY OF PROPERTY. 110 (Del.Ch.) The property of a defendant in an execution under a fi. fa. on a judgment by confession actually levied on within 60 days was bound at the time that the writ was delivered to the sheriff.-O'Connor v. Caplan, 106 A. 48. 32(3) (Me.) When a bill of exceptions has been duly presented for allowance, but before allowance the justice who was presiding at trial becomes incapacitated for allowing them, under Rev. St. c. 82, § 56, it may be allowed (Del.Ch.) A creditor, who has obtained a by any justice on motion for hearing.-Borneman v. Milliken, 106 A. 345. Where justice who presided at trial died after presentation of bill of exceptions, but before allowance thereof, it was properly allowed by the Chief Justice, under Rev. St. c. 82, § 56.-Id. 38 (Md.) Where there is no rule of court or statute as to time for filing bill of exceptions, it must be filed in term unless time is extended.Wegefarth v. Weissner, 106 A. 854. ←39(1) (Md.) Under Acts 1916, c. 625, bills of exception in the city of Baltimore may be signed at any time during period within which the appeal may be taken, and upon filing the order for appeal the appellant is allowed two months longer within which to prepare them.Wegefarth v. Weissner, 106 A. 854. 40(2) (Md.) Where there is a statute or rule of court fixing the time in which bills of exceptions may be signed, the court, in absence of some provision to the contrary, may, by an order passed within the time specified, extend the time.-Wegefarth v. Weissner, 106 Á. 854. That part of Acts 1916. c. 625, which provides that, upon the failure of appellee to return bills of exceptions within 15 days they shall be signed by the court as originally prepared by the appellant, and the further provision that upon the return of the bills of exceptions by the appellee, with his amendments and additions, the same shall forthwith be presented to the judge, who shall settle the same within 5 days thereafter, are not mandatory, and the court may extend the time in a proper gase. -id. judgment by confession on a bond for advances of money, and caused an execution under a fi. fa. on such judgment to be issued, is entitled to enforce his lien to the extent of all advances made before the attachment suit of another creditor was begun, assuming that his lien is prior to that of such attachment creditor.O'Connor v. Caplan, 106 A. 48. V. STAY, QUASHING, VACATING, AND RELIEF AGAINST EXECUTION. ~171(4) (Del.) While, in a proper case, action which would cast a cloud on, title to real estate can be enjoined, a judgment creditor, acting in good faith, having reason to believe that conveyance by debtor prior to judgment was fraudulent and void, and seeking by execution sale to avoid it. should not be enjoined, and compelled to litigate the title in equity; whether there is fraud in any case being a question of fact, like other questions of act, peculiarly within the province of the jury, and the party making the allegation of fraud being entitled to have the question submitted to a jury.-Johnson v. Messick, 106 A. 58. 172(6) (Del.Ch.) The burden of proof is upon a creditor, seeking injunctive relief against execution on a judgment of another creditor, to show that such judgment is invalid for fraud, or that the bond on which the judgment issued lacks consideration.-O'Connor v. Caplan, 106 A, 48. X. SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. 359 (N.J.Sup.) P. L. 1915, p. 470, giving special relief to judgment creditors where the For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER public income amounts to $18 per week or more, has no effect on pre-existing statutes in relation. to the immunity of official salary, where the salary earned is less than $18 per week.-Oetjen v. Hintemann, 106 A. 213. pying the land, selling timber growing thereon, become wrongdoers, and equity will require them to account to owner for the actual stumpage value, with simple interest.-Powers v. Trustees of Caledonia County Grammar School, 106 A. 836. 368 (N.J.Sup.) A salary of an assistant lighting inspector of Jersey City, being earn-148 (Vt.) Where the executors of a licensee ed in service to the public in an official char- who had possession of school lands, had no right acter, is not subject to appropriation by or- in or to the land, nor the timber standing thereder and supplementary proceedings as part of on, their conveyance to another conveyed no debtor's income under P. L. 1915, p. 470.- rights to such grantee, and his estate is chargeaOetjen v. Hintemann, 106 A. 213. ble for the actual stumpage value of timber cut, with simple interest.-Powers v. Trustees of EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. Caledonia County Grammar School, 106 A. 836. See Appeal and Error, 1047; Courts, 201; Creditors' Suit, 39; Descent and Distribution; Guardian and Ward. 163; Licenses, 56; Marriage, 40; Railroads, 338; Taxation, 868; Trial. 66, 133; Vendor and Purchaser, 130; Wills; Witnesses, 144, 167, 168, 178, 181, 182. III. ASSETS, APPRAISAL, AND INVENTORY. 41 (Pa.) Fiduciaries' Act, § 14, declaring rents of realty accruing after owner's death assets for payment of his debts when personal estate is insufficient, being designed to correct injustice to creditors existing before its passage, should be given a liberal construction to effect that purpose.-In re Reel's Estate, 106 A. 227. Under Fiduciaries' Act, making rents of realty assets for payment of decedent's debt, a personal representative may collect rents accruing under lease made by decedent, and also rents from realty not under lease at the time of decedent's death.-Id. 52 (N.H.) In assumpsit by executor to recover money which he claims belongs to the estate, executor, to recover, must establish a promise, express or implied, to make payment, and such promise is not established by evidence that money belonging to deceased was paid over to defendant by deceased in his lifetime.-Harriman v. Bunker, 106 A. 499. 56 (N.H.) Executor cannot recover from testator's donee gift executed upon Sunday upon ground of its illegality, since executor cannot take advantage of the illegal conduct of his testator.-Harriman v. Bunker, 106 A. 499. IV. COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE. (A) In General. ~111(5) (N.J.Ch.) Application for permission to charge against the estate certain sums paid by the executor to his business partners for services rendered to the estate will not be allowed, where the affidavits submitted do Lot show the value of the services, and such services must be considered as part of the services performed by the executor.-Runkle v. Smith, 106 A. 474. 111(6) (N.J.Ch.) Allowances of $35,000 to the counsel of the executor of an estate of $2.289.000 for their services in bringing and defending some ten separate suits and attending to many other matters, and of $11,000 to the counsel for the residuary legatee, who filed the bill resulting in the administration of the estate by the chancery court and completed an involved litigation in one suit, held not excessive. Runkle v. Smith, 106 A. 474. (B) Real Property and Interests Therein. 129(1) (Vt.) The executors of a mala fide purchaser from school trustees are chargeable with his knowledge that trustees exceeded their authority in making the conveyance to him.Powers v. Trustees of Caledonia County Grammar School, 106 A. 836. V. ALLOWANCES TO SURVIVING WIFE. HUSBAND, OR CHILDREN. 180 (Pa.) Only the one recognized by Pennsylvania law as widow of decedent can claim a widow's exemption, and where a Nevada divorce was without jurisdiction and invalid as to interest of first wife, the second wife could not assert such claim in decedent's estate, notwithstanding first wife's waiver of such right.In re Grossman's Estate, 106 A. 86, 88. Children and heirs of a decedent, as such, are entitled to all his estate, except that which may go to creditors or to widow, and may object to unlawful diversion of any part of estate, so that where their mother, decedent's first wife, had waived her claim to a widow's exemption and second surviving wife had no widow's exemption, the funds which would have been allotted to their mother goes to children.-Id. Where a divorce rendered by foreign court without jurisdiction did not affect interest of first wife in husband's estate, second wife's ignorance of its legal effect in Pennsylvania and husband's belief that it was effective therein would not estop his children and heirs from questioning foreign decree, and deceased's recognition of his second wife as his wife did not vest her with a legal widow's exemption in his estate.--Id. VI. ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. (A) Liabilities of Estate. 221(4) (R.I.) Evidence held insufficient to establish a definite and enforceable legal claim in favor of plaintiff against a decedent or his estate, so that the superior court properly dismissed plaintiff's appeal from the probate court. -Arnold v. Draper, 106 A. 581. (B) Presentation and Allowance. 224 (Conn.) Action upon trustee's bond against deceased surety's estate in process of settlement, where right of action accrued subsequent to surety's death, is barred under Gen. St. 1902, § 326, on failure to present claim within four months after accrual; such action not calling for equitable relief.-State v. Northrop, 106 A. 504. Though Gen. St. 1902, § 326, requiring presentation of claim accruing after death of deceased within four months after accrual, will bar establishment of legal claim against estate not so presented, it is inapplicable to equitable action against distributees to reclaim assets for purpose of satisfying a legal claim judicially established against estate; the only bar to such action being that of laches.Id. re 225(3) (Conn.) Probate court's order quiring claims against estate to be filed within certain time applies only to existing claims, and not to contingent or after-accrued claims. -State v. Northrop, 106 A. 504. Liability of deceased upon trustee's bond which may or may not thereafter accrue is not affected by order of probate court requir130(1) (Vt.) Where a license under which ing claims against estate to be presented withland was held was in law revoked by death of in specified time, though trustee has misaplicensee, his executors by possessing and occu-propriated funds, since trustee's liability did Executors and Administrators 106 ATLANTIC REPORTER not accrue until demand was made upon him by his successor.-Id. VII. DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE. 318 (Conn.) Action against distributees to enforce judgment recovered against estate by compelling the distributees to refund to the estate such portion thereof as is necessary to satisfy judgment is equitable in character, but must be founded upon the adjudication of a legal claim against the estate.-State v. Northrop, 106 A. 504. X. ACTIONS. 451(2) (N.H.) A claim against an estate for an agreed balance implies a payment made with an express or implied admission of the existence of a greater debt, and where the only evidence of such payment is a legacy to plaintiff, and the will contains no admission of indebtedness. the evidence in support of the claim is insufficient to go to the jury.-Hubbard v. Leighton, 106 A. 485. Whether a witness to prove a contract by deceased is entitled to belief, and whether the existence of the contract should be inferred from the evidence is for the jury.-Id. XI. ACCOUNTING AND SETTLEMENT. (D) Compensation, FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 938 I. CIVIL LIABILITY. (A) Acts Constituting False Imprisonment and Liability Therefor. 15(1) (N.J.Sup.) A magistrate who, upon a mere oral oath to the facts, but without a sworn and signed complaint, issues a warrant and causes the arrest of and binds over a citizen imprisonment.-Shaefer v. Smith, 106 A. 21. to keep the peace, may be held liable for false FALSE PRETENSES. See Criminal Law, ~407, 7551⁄2. 7(4) (N.J.) An instruction that jury were to ascertain whether pretenses made were calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence was too favorable to defendant, since indictment will lie even if pretenses would not deceive such a person.-State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. 38 (N.J.) In prosecution for obtaining monresentation that corporation was solvent, variey by inducing B. to purchase stock upon repance in date of check involved was immaterial.State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. The state was not bound to prove all false pretenses alleged, and a reasonable doubt as to one would not warrant acquittal.-Id. 51 (N.J.) In prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses, where there was evidence for the jury of the representations charged inducing the payment, their falsity and defendant's knowledge thereof, motion to direct acquittal at close of state's case was properly denied. 496(2) (N.J.Ch.) Under Orphans' Court Act, § 129, providing that where the receipts of an estate exceed $50,000 compensation shall be according to actual services rendered not exceeding 5 per cent. of all sums received by the executor, an allowance of $75,000, or 32 per-State v. Haines, 106 A. 27. cent. on an estate of $2,289,000, to the executor, held not excessive; $33,000 already paid the administrator pendente lite being considered only so far as it relieved the executor from work. Runkle v. Smith, 106 A. 474. (E) Stating, Settling, Opening, and Re view. 511(3) (Pa.) Where exceptions to an executor's account were passed upon by three successive auditors and proceedings were delayed four FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY See Commerce, 27; Master and Servant, 88, 100, 286. FEDERAL OPERATION OF RAIL ROADS. years in the distribution of a small estate, the See Railroads, 52. FELLOW SERVANTS. jection to competency of a witness.-In re Goeh- See Master and Servant, 185-201. ring's Estate, 106 A. 60. FIRES. 5(1) (Me.) The riparian owner on a nontidal stream has the right to take fish from water over his own land, to the exclusion of the public.-In re Opinions of the Justices, 106 A. 865. FOOD. See Constitutional Law, 205. 278; Contracts, 142; Statutes, 110%. 82 (Vt.) Where, after plaintiff had brought suit against defendant by way of trustee process, defendant made an assignment of wages then due him from the trustee to the amount of $10, the sum exempt under Gen. Laws, §§ 1936 1944, and thereafter plaintiff discontinued the suit and brought the present suit, in which he attached by trustee process the goods, chat- (N.J.) Ordinance regulating conditions tels, effects, and credits of defendant then in governing sale of milk or cream, adopted by the hands of the trustee, held, the $10 as- city having commission form of government, signed could not be taken into account in de- invested under the Walsh Act with powers termining the exemption.--Wilson v. Richard-conferred upon board of health of cities of first son, 106 A. 653. class under Act March 29, 1904 (P. L. p. 344) § 4. is invalid; the latter statute having been impliedly revoked in so far as it related to the power to deal with the purity of milk by Act May 20, 1907 (P. L. p. 485) § 6, as amended by Act March 17, 1911 (P. L. p. 61), and sections 30, 34, and 40.-Jersey City v. Hennessey, 106 A. 405. Act May 20, 1907 (P. L. p. 485) § 6, as amended by Act March 17, 1911 (P. L. p. 61), regulating the distribution and sale of foods, does not repeal in toto Act March 29, 1904 (P. |