Partnership Exemption.-It has been held by the Supreme Court of Dakota, that where statutory provisions for a partnership exemption do not exist, an individual can not claim an exemption out of unsevered partnership property. Bates v. Callender. 16 N. W. Rep. 506.

Pleading-Petition on Merchant's Account.-No judgment can be recovered on a petition upon a merchant's account that does not allege that the goods were delivered to the defendant, nor that they were sold to him at his special instance and request; nor that they were worth the amounts charged therefor in the account; nor the defendant promised to pay the amounts charged. Drake v. Semonin. Ky., June 13. Chicago L. N., Oct. 6, 1883.

Promissory Note-Extension of Time-Indorser.-Where a judgment had been obtained upon a note indorsed by B, held, that an agreement between the maker and payee to extend the time of payment, did not discharge the indorser, the extension being for an indefinite time. People's Bk. v. Legrand. Pa. 1 Lanc. Bar 57.

Real Estate Broker—Who Is.—A real estate broker is one who engages in the purchase of real estate as a business and occupation, and in Pennsylvania he can not recover his commissions unless he has taken out a license as required by the act of 1849. Johnson v. Hulings. Pa., May 25, 1883. Leg. Int., Oct. 5, 1883.

Real Estate Dedication-Trespass.-The circuit court instructed the jury that "the record of the plat introduced are construed by me to intend a dedication of the piece of land between the north side of block 42 and the section line, including the place of the alleged trespass." Held, erroneous, first, because dedication is a question of fact that should have been submitted to and passed upon by the jury, and second, because the records of the plats introduced do not indicate any intention to dedicate to the public use as a street, the piece of land in question. Held, error also to allow a defendant against objection to testify as a witness as to certain action of the village board, which action was or should have been matter of record. Eastland v. Fogo. Wis., Sept. 25. Wis. L. N., Oct. 6, 1883.

Real Estate Occupancy-Presumption.-Where the husband and wife both live on the same property, it does not follow as a matter of course that the property belongs to the husband. Hottenstein v. Lerch. 39 Leg. Int. 392, followed. Sill v. Swackhammer. Pa., May 25. Leg. Int., Oct. 5, 1883.

Real Estate--Purchase at Sheriff's Sale--Notice.--Notice given at or prior to the sheriff's sale affects the purchaser; it need not be given to the judgment creditor prior to the entry of the judgment. The purchaser is bound by such facts as he would have learned by inquiry, if inquiry had become a duty. Sill v. Swackhammer. Pa., May 25. Leg. Int., Oct. 5, 1883.

Relationship-Evidence.-The relationship of deceased party can not be established by his own declarations, but must be proved aliunde; when, however, that relationship is once established, his declarations as to kinship of other parties are admissible. Anderson v. Smith. S. C. D. C. 1 Wash. L. R. 562.

Sheriff-Return- When Made.—If return to process is not made at the term to which it is returnable, it becomes defunct, and has no further force, unless the time is extended by the court. The order granting such extension, however, must be made while the process is still alive-that is, during the term-otherwise it will be of no avail. It can not be entered nunc pro tunc, so as to operate retroactively. In re Road, etc. Apr. 30, 1883. Leg. Int., Oct. 5, 1883.

Slander-Evidence.-In an action for slander, the words must be proved substantially as laid; it is not enough to prove words of the same import; the words must be substantially the same words, and it is not sufficient that they contain substantially the same charge. Eisfelder v. Klein. Ky. 2 Ky. L. J. 138.

Tender-Effect-Suit-Verdict.-A tender is an admission of an amount due equal to the sum tendered, and while a verdict may be rendered for more than the amount tendered, it can not be rendered for less-and this although the tender be defective. D. S. P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Harp. Col., Spring Term, 1883. 4 Den. L. Rep. 55.

Trust for Pious Purposes-Masses.-On the twenty-third of August, 1882, Margaret Gillman, then about eighty-five years old, placed about $2,300 of money belonging to her in the hands of the defendant, with the direction and upon the condition that after the death of herself and her husband, who was then over ninety years of age, the defendant should use the money, in the first place to pay funeral expenses and erect a suitable monument to their memories: and in the second place to have masses said by a Roman Catholic priest for the repose of their souls. Held, that this cannot be upheld as a trust for a charitable use; that there is no one for whose benefit the trust is held. The beneficiaries are both dead and beyond the reach of human law. Their souls are intended as the beneficiaries and the money is to be expended for masses, for the repose of their souls. But the soul of one who has departed this life is incapable of taking an interest in the property left behind. Gilman v. McArdle. N. Y., Aug. 2. Chicago L. N., Sept. 29, 1883.

Will-Conditional Disposition.-Where a testator about to start on a journey made his will and testament, premising: "I deem it prudent to provide for the disposition of my property in case I should not return;" held that the phrase cited was not a condition upon which the will depends, but simply sets forth one of the circumstances which induced the testator to make his will before departure. Bradford's Adm'x v. Bradford. Ky. May, 1883. 16 Rep. 332.

A liberal New York paper, The Truth Seeker, speaks thus respecting Postmaster-General Gresham's action in regard to the Louisiana Lottery swindle:

"A high-handed proceeding in a republic with a written. constitution is the recent act of Postmaster-General Gresham in ordering the postmaster at New Orleans to withhold not only all letters directed to the Louisiana Lottery Company, but those directed to a bank of that place, on the ground that the bank was a cover for the lottery company and the lottery company a swindle. Granted that the lottery, per se, is evil, it is none the less an illegal step for the postmaster-general to take. In directing this withholding of properly directed letters, Mr. Gresham has gone a long way toward that interference with private correspondence which years ago drove an English postmaster-general into political disgrace. The English people reasoned that if the postoffice officials could open sealed correspondence which they thought contained treason they could open it for any other purpose, political or personal. Just so will the American people reason to-day. If Mr. Gresham can detain letters addressed to a bank because he suspects they are really intended for a lottery company, there is no safety for any one against whom the postmaster may have a suspicion. The alleged power to do this is derived from the so-called Comstock laws. These laws should be repealed for the safety of the country against such arbitrary and unconstitutional orders as General Gresham is givina

Who constituted him dictator and censor of public mails and morals? Certainly not the people."

This is unnecessarily severe. The violator of the mails and corruptor of public morals have no right which the people or the government are bound to respect. If any person or any corporation attempt to throw their protection around and cover up a fraud, or assist it in circumventing the law, such person or corporation becomes particimus criminis, and should be shown no respect or leniency. Gresham's action was eminently proper and just.

IMPORTANT CASES.

Mr. J. W. Donovan makes a good suggestion in his article, printed elsewhere in this number, and that is, that all cases of special interest to the profession, all methods of leading attorneys which may be of benefit to the profession at large, be carefully preserved and reported for the benefit of the profession, the same as all special cases in medicine and surgery are carefully preserved and reported in the interest of science. If this were done as thoroughly by the lawyers as it is by the doctors, the benefit would outweigh the time, trouble, and expense of doing so.

NOTES OF CASES.

FRAUD AS À CONSIDERATION.

Judge Paxson, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Winton v. Freeman, 16 Rep. 340, decided the twentysixth of last March, said that "It is settled by numerous authorities, that there is no more binding consideration known to the law than the mutual fraud of the parties. It is not the province of the law to help a rogue out of his toils. The rule is to leave the parties where it finds them, giving no relief and no countenance to contracts made in violation of statute; Hershey v. Weiting, 14 Wr. 240; Evans v. Dravo, 12 Marris, 62." In this case the court held that where a promissory note is given fraudulently and collusively in order to hinder and delay

creditors, it is binding as between the parties thereto, and that the maker can not set up as a defense either the fraud or the want of consideration against either the payee or his assignee who takes in good faith and without knowledge of the fraud.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES.

WINNING CASES.-No. III.

When Dr. Agnew made his skilful opening in General Garfield's side, relieved the pain and let the world breathe freer by a single act, thousands applauded science. That science was experience. When Graham cleared McFarland for shooting Richardson in the Tribune office in '72, people said "so much for sham insanity." Graham's act was experience. When Ford was acquitted quite recently in Missouri, men murmured at the ignorance of juries.

Time has demonstrated that General Garfield's doctors were skilful but science was most decidedly wanting. All of the instruments were deceptive on the location of the bullet, on its direction and the extent of the injury.

The public were behind the age in the McFarland case, as every important murder trial since has clearly shown. And to-day it is a noted fact that no jury can be found to convict a man or woman well defended who has taken life in defense of their home or fireside-especially where one has punished the destroyer of his wife's virtue, and the family were shown to live happy before the victim meddled with forbidden fruit. Laws are not strong enough, statutes are not binding enough to stay the husband's hand in this species of self-defense. Juries know it and lawyers realize it everywhere.

As to the acquittal of Ford, something of prejudice may have crept into the jury box, but the real cause of the verdict was a lack of belief in the people's evidence. There was a general over-confidence that is the means of losing many cases.

People were too sanguine of skill in Garfield's case and over-confident in the Ford case.

There is a common disposition to underrate our enemies.