the avowed intention of never permitting him to see her again. One child was born to this union, but died before attaining the age of 10 years. The said Rhoda Hunter after leaving her husband, the said Peter C. Hunter, went. to another part of the State (Pennsylvania) and subsequently lived with another man until the date of her death, which occurred in or about the year 1874. Soon after the departure of the said Rhoda in 1857 the said Peter C. Hunter began cohabiting with one Mrs. Cobb, the wife of one John Cobb, and was living with her at the time of his enlistment in the Army in September, 1862. After his discharge in December, 1863, be returned to the said Mrs. Cobb and continued to live with her for a few months. He then left her and she returned to her husband, John Cobb.

In July, 1864, the said Peter C. Hunter was married, or attempted to be married, to one Alvirah, the daughter of one Ellen Hoover. He cohabited with her for the period of about two years, when they separated. He then went to the State of New York, where, in the spring of 1867, he became acquainted with the claimant in this case, was regularly married to her October 6, 1867, in Alpine, Schuyler County, N. Y., and continued to live with her and recognize her as his wife until the date of his death, January 29, 1895. They resided at various places in the State of New York from the date of their marriage until about the year 1883 (ten years after the date of death of the said Rhoda Hunter, soldier's first wife), and for about twelve years just prior to soldier's death they resided in the State of Pennsylvania. At the time of claimant's marriage to Peter C. Hunter in 1867 she had reason to believe, and did believe, that there was no impediment to such marriage.

At the time of Peter C. Hunter's marriage, or attempted marriage, with Alvirah in 1864 his wife Rhoda was in full life and undivorced; therefore said marriage was absolutely void. (23 Pa. St., 104; 124 Pa. St., 646.) He did not live with her or recognize her as his wife at any time subsequent to the death of his wife Rhoda.

The claimant in this case believed at the time of her marriage with Peter C. Hunter that said marriage was valid. They cohabited together as husband and wife, and under the reputation and understanding that they were such for

more than twenty years after the death of Hunter's first wife, Rhoda; therefore she was the wife of the said Peter C. Hunter at the time of his death and is now his legal widow. (4 Johns. (N. Y.), 52; and 91 N. Y., 451.)

Upon a revision of the account I find and certify that there is due from the United States to Adaline Hunter, as widow of Peter C. Hunter, a difference of $143.85 under appropriation "Arrears of pay, bounty, etc. (certified claims), 1910," being the amount short paid in this case, as hereinbefore stated.

PAYMENTS TO BENEFICIARIES DESIGNATED BY ENLISTED MEN OF THE NAVY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 13, 1908.

Where the facts disclose that, under the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), providing for the payment of six months' pay, less certain deductions, to the beneficiaries designated by officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps who die from wounds or disease contracted in the line of duty, an enlisted man of the Navy designated, on the printed form furnished by the Navy Department for such purpose, his mother, and, "in the event of the decease of the above-named beneficiary prior to my own death, I then designate as my beneficiary under said act my sister," and upon the death of the enlisted man a check for the amount due under the said act of May 13, 1908, supra, was sent to the mother, but was returned on account of the fact that the said mother had died subsequent to the date of the death of the enlisted man, but before receiving payment, it is held that the mother died before the death of the enlisted man within the purview and meaning of said designation, which was, that if the mother died before receiving said pay, it should be paid to the sister, and that such amount is now properly payable to said sister.

Assistant Comptroller Mitchell to the Secretary of the Navy, March 12, 1910: I am in receipt of your reference of February 7, 1910, submitting an inquiry by the Paymaster-General of the Navy as to whether payment of the six months' pay provided by the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), may be made to the second beneficiary designated by Frank B. Franzen, late oiler, U. S. Navy, or to any other person.

The act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), provides:

"That hereafter immediately upon official notification of the death from wounds or disease contracted in line of duty of any officer or enlisted man on the active list of the Navy

and Marine Corps the Paymaster-General of the Navy shall cause to be paid to the widow of such officer or enlisted man, or any person previously designated by him, an amount equal to six months' pay at the rate received by such officer or enlisted man at the date of his death, less seventy-five dollars in the case of an officer and thirty-five dollars in the case of an enlisted man, to defray expenses of interment, and the residue, if any, of the amount reserved shall be paid subsequently to the designated person. The Secretary of the Navy shall establish regulations requiring each officer and enlisted man to designate the proper person to whom this amount shall be paid in case of death, and said amount shall be paid to that person from funds appropriated for the pay of the Navy and Marine Corps."

Under said statute the Navy Department prepared the following printed form to be executed by officers and enlisted men by which to designate the person or persons, to receive said six months pay:

U. S. S...

In the event of my death while on the active list of the.......

(Navy or Marine Corps.) from wounds or disease contracted in the line of duty, I designate as my beneficiary to receive six months' pay (less deductions to cover funeral expenses) under the provisions of the act approved May 13, 1908, my

(Relationship.)

(Name of beneficiary.)

(Address of beneficiary.)

In the event of the decease of the above-named beneficiary prior to my own death, I then designate as my beneficiary under said act my

Upon the back of said form is the following printed:

INSTRUCTIONS.

This form must be filled out in the presence of a commissioned officer of the United States Navy or Marine Corps, or notary public, and the signature attested by such officer under ship's or notarial seal. The full name of the beneficiary should be carefully stated. The prefixes "Mr.," "Mrs.," or "Miss" should not be used. If a married woman, her own Christian name should be given, and not that of her husband, as, for instance, "Annie N. Howe," not "Mrs. John Howe."

It appears that on July 31, 1908, the said Frank B. Franzen, then in the Navy, filled out one of said printed forms and designated as his first beneficiary "my mother, Margreta Frantz," and gave her address as "Sexdrega, Sweden," and his second beneficiary "my sister, Ida Frantz,” and gave her address as "Sexdrega, Sweden;" that said designations were made by filling the blanks in said printed form and without erasing or changing any of the printed part of said form.

On October 8, 1908, the said Frank B. Franzen died, and upon his death a check for $232.06, the amount of said six months' pay, less deductions, was sent to his mother, Margreta Frantz, but was returned, she having died on December 13, 1908, before payment could be made to her. The question presented is whether said amount can now be paid to the said sister, Ida Frantz.

What the enlisted man intended by the above designation, if that can be ascertained, should be carried into effect, and in ascertaining his intention said designation and the circumstances under which it was made should receive a liberal construction. It appears that the designation was made on a printed form which had been prescribed by the Navy Department and which was furnished the enlisted man to fill out, and which if strictly construed made the right of the sister dependent upon the happening of one event, viz, the death of his mother prior to his own death. It appears that the enlisted man had two persons standing in different degrees of relationship to him, viz, his mother and his sister, who were the objects of his bounty and for whom he wanted to make provisions to the extent of the six months' pay as provided in said act. The first object

of his bounty was his mother and the second object of his bounty was his sister; that is, between his mother and his sister he gave the preference to his mother. In using the printed form the pay was to go first to the mother, and in the event of her death prior to the death of the enlisted man it was to go to the sister, but the mother died after and not prior to his death, but without receiving said pay, and the question is whether the death of the mother after instead of before the death of the enlisted man and before the mother received said pay has the effect to deprive the sister of said benefit so that neither of them shall receive it.

I am of the opinion that the mother died before the death of the enlisted man within the purview and meaning of said designation, which was that if she died before receiving said pay it should be paid to his sister, and I am of opinion, under all the facts and circumstances, that said pay less the proper deductions should be paid to the sister.

If the above form had said that in the event of the death of the mother before payment, then payment to be made to the sister, it would have expressed literally what the enlisted man intended.

FREIGHT RATES ON SHIPMENTS OF MIXED CAR LOADS OF

FURNITURE.

When a freight-rate classification book contains the specific enumeration of various kinds of furniture with varying conditions and rates, and also a general classification under the heading of "furniture," specifically excluding from the benefits thereof only "bank, store, saloon, or office furniture," specifically provided for under another heading, the conclusion is justified that if it had been the intention to exclude other classes of furniture from the general item concerning furniture such other classes would have been mentioned in the exclusion. When a freight-rate classification contains a general item providing rates for "furniture and furniture frames, exclusive of bank, store, saloon, or office furniture," and on the same page provisions for different rates are made for various articles of furniture, among them being "iron bedsteads and metallic mattresses," in case of shipment of a mixed carload of furniture, such iron beds and mattresses, not being specifically excluded from the general heading of furniture in the first item, would be paid for on the basis of the rate provided in said first general item and not the rate named in the latter item.