Force and violence implied. Under a statute making it a felony to take and carry away a negro by force and violence, an indictment charging that defendant did take and carry away is insufficient, as such words do not of themselves imply force and violence. Hamilton v. Commonwealth (Pa.) 3 Pen. & W. 142, 146. Promise to pay imported. "Take," as used in a subscription to take so many shares of corporation stock, is but an agreement "to receive the shares and get them into the subscriber's possession, which could only be effected by paying for them. One who agrees to take a thing which is the subject of price or compensation ex vi termini agrees to pay for such thing the price attached, or whatever it is worth." Sagory v. Dubois (N. Y.) 8 Sandf. Ch. 466, 493. As receive. As used in St. Geo. IV, c. 95, § 30, enacting that, if any collector of tolls shall demand and take a greater or less toll from any person than he shall be authorized to do by virtue of the powers of any act, he shall be liable to a penalty, the word "take" denotes no more than "receive," without any notion of force or compulsion. Stamp v. Sweetland, 8 Q. B. 13, 21. The word "take" has very many shades of meaning. The precise meaning which it is to bear in any case depends upon the subject in respect to which it is used. In Gen. St. §§ 3003, 3005, providing that a pawnbroker shall not take more than 25 per cent. per annum for loans on chattels, means that the pawnbroker, in order to be liable to the penalty, must take the unlawful interest in such a manner that he gets it into his possession. He must take it in the sense of receiving it. The pawner must have parted with it. "To take" means, in its general sense, to get into one's possession or power; to acquire; to obtain; to procure. Hallenbeck v. Getz, 28 Atl. 519, 520, 63 Conn. 385. As steal. To constitute probable cause for a prosecution for theft, it is not sufficient that such circumstances existed as would cause such suspicion and belief that the party prosecuted had taken the articles alleged to be stolen; the "taking" of an article not being necessarily synonymous with the stealing of it. Stone v. Stevens, 12 Conn. 219, 229, 30 Am. Dec. 611. As take by descent. "Take," as used in Civ. Code, § 671, providing that any person, whether citizen or alien, may take, hold, or dispose of property within the state, is broad enough to include the taking by descent, as well as by purchase, and is used to indicate the taking or acquisition of property in either of the modes mentioned. There is no reason for confining the meaning of "take" to acquisition by purchase. Billings v. Hauver, 4 Pac. 639, 640, 65 Cal. 593. As take by process in invitum. "Taken," as used in Rev. St. p. 136, § 1, providing that the estate to which it relates should not be liable to be attached or in any way "taken" for the debts of the husband, means taken in invitum. A taking of property by mechanic's lien is not a taking within the meaning of the statute; for a mechanic's lien essentially resembles a mortgage, rather than an attachment, which is not a process in invitum. Briggs v. Titus, 13 R. I. 136, 138. As wrongful taking. Rev. St. 5469 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3692], which provides for the punishment of any person who shall "take the mail or any letter or packet therefrom or from any postoffice," etc., "with or without the consent of the person having the custody thereof" and open, embezzle, or destroy any such mail, means a wrongful and unlawful taking; hence, a taking of mail by virtue of the authority of the rightful owner and a subsequent embezzlement of the contents would not constitute an offense against the United States under this section. The tak ing, to constitute an offense under this act, must be with a criminal intent. In re Burkhardt (U. S.) 33 Fed. 25, 27. "Taken," as used in a verdict finding the defendant guilty of larceny, and stating that "we find the value of the ore taken to be" a certain amount, must be understood to have been used in its ordinary TAKE CARE. English significance, and clearly refers to the ore stolen. Bergdahl ▼. People, 61 Pac. 228, 231, 27 Colo. 302. The word "take," as used in St. 22 & 23 Car. II, c. 25, giving to a justice of the peace jurisdiction over offenders who "steal, take, or kill fish," means stealing; and an indictment for taking and killing fish which does not allege that the same belonged to another is insufficient. Rex v. Mallinson, 2 Burrows, 679, 682. instruction, in an action by a servant against "Take care," within the meaning of an his master for personal injuries, that the employer must take care that the machinery is safe and suitable, involves the idea of an act of duty imposed, the failure to perform which, when an injury occurs, is such negligence as raises a liability for the damages resulting. Such an instruction is not erroneous. Guthrie v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 79 Tenn. (11 Lea) 372, 379, 47 Am. Rep. 286. TAKE CARE OF TAKE CARE OF. Debts. 6849 In an agreement whereby a party agrees to take care of indebtedness existing on the property, the use of the words "take care" does not import an obligation to pay off and discharge the liens, but to take care of them. McBride v. Wakefield, 78 N. W. 713, 714, 58 Neb. 442, The phrase "take care of matured paper," as applied to matured negotiable paper, means to take up by a payment or renewal, or to secure an extension of the time of payment. Yale v. Watson, 55 N. W. 957, 958, 54 Minn. 173. Person. "Take care of," as used in an undertaking whereby one agrees to support and take care of another, is to be construed according to the various circumstances of the party, and does not necessarily imply that the person to be supported is not to use any exertions to support himself. Bull v. McCrea, 47 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 422, 425. TAKE MEASURES FOR of this, my will, shall be executed or take effect until," etc., is used synonymously with, and as an equivalent to, the word "executed." Jones v. Habersham, 2 Sup. Ct. 336, 339, 107 U. S. 174, 27 L. Ed. 401. The term "take effect," in Const. art. 1, 25, providing that no law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend on any authority, except as provided in the Constitution, is used synonymously with "be in force," or "go into operation." Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342, 348.. TAKE EFFECT AT MY DEATH. The words "take effect at my death," when used in an instrument attested as a deed, and in all respects in the form of a deed, are to be treated as merely designed to postpone the possession or enjoyment by the grantee until after the death of the grantor, and do not render the instrument a will. West v. Wright, 41 S. E. 602, 115 Ga. 277. TAKE HIS OWN LIFE. In St. 1808, p. 382, authorizing the counA life policy, exempting the company ty court to appoint some person a conservator from liability if the insured "takes his own to "take care of and oversee" idiots and their life," is limited to the deliberate act of the estate, the words "to oversee" authorize the insured in ending his own existence, or comconservator to superintend, and the expres-mitting any unlawful malicious act, the consion "to take care of" makes it his duty to assume the requisite charge in order to the preservation and profit of the estate. Treat V. Peck, 5 Conn. 280, 284. The words "to take care of," in a will bequeathing a mulatto girl to testator's daughter Betsy, and providing, "I allow my daughter Mary to take care of my said daughter Betsy, and at her decease I allow my daughter Mary to have the said mulatto girl," etc., are equivalent to support and maintenance, as well as personal attention. All are included under the direction to take care of; for one cannot be said to be taken care of who is waited on with great care, but who is neither fed nor clothed, nor can one be taken care of, who is unable to feed herself or put on her clothes, by placing before her food and raiment. The direction in the will to take care of the complainant enjoins on the legatee both personal attention to and support of her. Cabeen v. Gordon (S. C.) 1 Hill, Eq. 51, 56. TAKE CHARGE OF. TAKE EFFECT. "Take effect," as used in the provision of a will as follows: "It is my wish, and I hereby so direct, that none of the legacies, bequests, and devises in any of the clauses sequence of which is his own death. The in his senses when committing such act, as insured must be of years of discretion and "it would be unreasonable to interpret it as including death by accident or by mistake, though the direct or immediate act of the insured may have contributed to it." Knights of Golden Rule v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436, 448, 46 Am. Rep. 332. TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. A notice by town supervisors that they will meet at a certain time and place to "take into consideration" an application to lay out a highway is not a compliance with the statute which requires them to "give notice of the time and place at which they will meet to decide on an application." State v. Castle, 44 Wis. 670, 675. The notice did not mean that they would there "decide" on the petition, but that they would take it into consideration, or deliberate on it, which they might do without deciding anything. Babb v. Carver, 7 Wis. 124, 128. TAKE MEASURES FOR. A contract in which one of the parties agrees to "take measures for" the formation of a company with a certain capital to use certain patents and to deliver to the patentee a certain amount of the paid-up stock thereof cannot be construed to mean take the consent of the owner, relates to anfinals effectual measures for the formation of a running at large; so that one who takes a company, but only to make reasonable ef- horse which is saddled and hitched to a forts for the formation thereof. Cooke v. tree, and uses it without the consent of Barr, 39 Conn. 296, 304. the owner, cannot be prosecuted under such statute. Cochran v. State, 35 S. W. 968, 969, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 115. TAKE ON BOARD. The term "take on board," in Rev. St. § 4253, providing that if the master of any vessel at a foreign port shall take on board any greater number of passengers, etc., means a coming on board openly in the usual way, and "all passengers who do so, not clandestinely and without the master's consent, express or implied, are taken on board by him. It is not necessary that he should see them come, and he may, and usually does, commit that duty to his subordinates; but, as no one has a right to come on board without his consent, a passenger found there is presumed to have been taken on board by him, until the contrary is shown." United States v. Thom son (U. S.) 12 Fed. 245, 248. Note. "Take up," in an allegation in a pleading that plaintiffs, who were indorsers, were compelled to take up said note, means that, the note not being paid when due, in compliance with the contract of indorsement they paid the amount to the holder, and that he surrendered the note to them, and does not mean that the note was absolutely paid. Hartzell v. McClurg, 74 N. W. 626, 54 Neb. 316. TAKEN. "Taken," as used in Gen. St. c. 234, § 5, declaring that every person who shall be guilty of playing faro, etc., shall be taken Where, by a contract for the conveyand held to be a common gambler, does not ance of goods from Liverpool to Australia, mean that the offender is a common gamthe goods were to be "taken on board" at bler, so as to require the offense to be the ship's expense, the term implied that thrice repeated, on the ground that a man whatever care was required to be taken to cannot be a common offender until he has offended at least three times, but only means ship the goods safely and securely was understood and intended to be taken by and that he shall rank as a common gambler in at the expense of the ship. Cooke v. Wil-point of criminality. State v. Melville, 11 son, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 153, 163. R. I. 417, 418. "Taken," though properly the past tense of the verb "take" should not always be regarded in its strict grammatical sense, but, as used in a stipulation that any and all testimony taken in another case involving the same questions could be used, should not be construed to mean that testimony only which was taken prior to the stipulation, but all the testimony taken in such case. Saffold v. Horne, 18 South. 433, 437, 72 Miss. 470. Appeal taken. An appeal is "taken" when notice of intention to appeal is served, or, in other words, whenever a legal condition is performed which terminates the running of the statute limiting the time for taking it. Saverance v. Lockhart, 45 S. E. 83, 84, 66 S. C. 539. As used in Acts 1885, p. 159, § 4, declaring that, if an appeal from the county court to the district court be not taken on the same day on which the judgment is rendered, a party appealing shall serve on the appellee within five days after the appeal is taken a notice in writing stating that such appeal has been taken, means the filing and approval of an appeal bond; and an appeal is not taken merely because one is prayed and allowed. Law v. Nelson, 24 Pac. 2, 14 Colo. 409; Straat v. Blanchard, 24 | terer in the very act of adulterous interPac. 561, 562, 14 Colo. 445. As used in Rev. St. § 1008 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 715], providing that no judgment, decree, or order of a Circuit or District Court in any civil action at law or in equity should be reviewed in the Supreme Court on writ of error or appeal, unless the writ of error is brought or the appeal is taken within two years after the entry of such judgment, decree, or order, "taken" means when the appeal is in some way presented to the court which made the decree appealed from, thereby putting an end to its jurisdiction over the cause, and making it its duty to send it to the appellate court, which is done by filing the papers, viz., the petition and allowance of appeal (where there is such a petition and allowance), the appeal bond, and the citation, Credit Co. v. Arkansas Cent. R. Co., 9 Sup. Ct. 107, 128 U. S. 258, 32 L. Ed. 448. Rev. St. c. 35, § 4, providing that, when it shall appear that "unlawful interest has been taken or reserved," it shall be lawful for the debtor to become a witness, etc., refers to a usurious contract for the loan of money, whereby there has been reserved or taken a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law at the inception of the contract, and not to the payment of unlawful and usurious interest on a lawful contract. Brickett v. Minot, 48 Mass. (7 Metc.) 291, 294. TAKEN AS ORDERED. The phrase "to be taken as ordered," in a contract to furnish paper at a certain price, to be taken as ordered, amounted to an undertaking on the part of the buyer to take at the price named the quantity specified. Excelsior Wrapper Co. v. Messinger, 93 N. W. 459, 461, 116 Wis. 549. TAKEN AS TRUE. "Taken as true," as used in an instruction that what defendant has testified to against his interest is to be taken as true, is saying no more than that they are presumed to be true, or are conclusive, for the purposes of the case in hand. State v. Brooks, 12 S. W. 633, 634, 99 Mo. 137. TAKEN IN THE AСТ. course in order to fulfill the term "taken in of the commission of the crime are not rethe act of adultery," as such positive proofs quired and are rarely attainable; and, as lished and proven by circumstantial evithe crime of adultery itself may be estab dence, the law does not hold the husband to a greater or higher degree of proof than required to establish the fact of adultery, and the law always estimates a man's right to act on reasonable appearances, and where the acts of the parties, and their words, coupled with their acts, presented appearances of a character such as would have created the reasonable apprehension and that the parties taken were in the act of conviction in a person of ordinary mind adultery, and the circumstances were such that any reasonable and sensible man would of adultery, or were about to commit or have concluded that they were in an act just had committed the act, it would be sufficient to justify the homicide. The adultery referred to in the statute does not mean the adultery which is defined as a specific offense by the Code, but means ecknown in common parlance-that is, a vioclesiastical adultery, or adultery as it is lation of the marriage bed-no matter whether the adultery consist of but one or more acts, or whether the parties lived in habitual carnal intercourse or not. Price v. State, 18 Tex. App. 474, 480, 51 Am. Rep. 322. TAKEN OUT OF THE STATE. An agreement in the sale of a negro that he should be "taken out of the state" meant that he should be domiciliated out of the state, and the words were not satisfied by merely taking the slave out with the intention of bringing him back, or with the knowledge that he would be returned. Nowell v. O'Hara (S. C.) 1 Hill, 150, 152. TAKEN TOGETHER. As used in Rev. Codes, § 3900, providing that in construction of several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, they are to be "taken together," this phrase does not mean that they are to be joined, and thereby to become a single contract, but they are to be taken together for the purpose of interpreting, either the transaction to which they relate, or the several contracts themselves. First Nat. Bank v. Flath, 86 N. W. 867, 870, 10 N. D. 281. As used in Pen. Code, art. 567, providing that homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband on the person of any one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided the killing take place before the parties to the act of adultery have separated, does not mean that the husband 2 Rev. St. p. 664, § 12, providing that must discover or see the wife and the adul- any person who shall take away any female TAKING (In Abduction). under the age of 14 years without the consent of her father, mother, or guardian, for the purpose of concubinage or marriage, shall be punished, etc., means some positive act by which the female is taken away from her home, or from the person having the legal charge of her, sufficient to amount to an abduction. People v. Parshall (N. Y.) 6 Parker, Cr. R. 129, 132. "Taking," as used in a statute prohib iting abduction and providing that any person who shall be guilty of taking away any unmarried female for improper or indecent purposes, without the consent of and against the wishes of her parent or guardian, shall be guilty, etc., does not mean necessarily a taking by force or against the will of the female abducted, but the statute was satisfied and the offense complete if the taking was accomplished by improper solicitations and inducements. People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 388. It may be accomplished by persuasion, enticement, or device. State v. Jamison, 35 N. W. 712, 713, 38 Minn. 21. A girl under the age of 16 was persuaded by the prisoner to leave her father's house and proceed to an appointed place, on the understanding that he would meet her there and take her with him to America. This she accordingly did, was joined by the prisoner, and proceeded with him to London, where he was apprehended. Held, that this was a "taking" out of the possession of the father, within St. 9 Geo. IV, c. 31, § 20, providing that any person who shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl under the age of 16 years out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. TAKING (In Eminent Domain). The word "taking," in the constitutional provision relative to the taking of private property for public use, applies only to an active taking, and is to be construed in its & S. natural significance. West Branch Canal Co. v. Mulliner, 68 Pa. (18 P. F. Smith) 357, 360. Constitutions which provide that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation are but declaratory of the common law, and contemplate the physical taking of property only. Less v. City of Butte, 72 Pac. 140, 141, 28 Mont. 27, 61 L. R. A. 601, 98 Am. St. Rep. 545. "Taken," as used in Const. art. 1, § 17, providing that no person's property shall be taken or damaged for public use without adequate compensation, etc., is held to mean an actual taking in the physical sense of the word. This construction seems to be favored largely from the fact that anything other than an actual taking is fully provided for in another part of the section. Rische v. Texas Transp. Co., 66 S. W. 324, 327, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 33. As used in the fifth amendment of the federal Constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, "taken" means "the appropriation by any method." People v. Daniels, 22 Pac. 159, 162, 6 Utah, 288, 5 L. R. A. 444. The phrase "taking for public use" is defined to be the actual seizing or direct taking of specific property for public use. In re Dorrance St., 4 R. I. 230, 245. A taking of property for a public use Reg. v. Manktelow, 20 Eng. Law & Eq. 601, "means a taking altogether; an entire change 602. Where defendant went to the house of B., and placed a ladder against the window, and held it for B.'s daughter to descend, which she did and then eloped with defendant, it was a "taking from the possession" of her father, within the meaning of St. 9 Geo. IV, c. 31, § 20, relating to the taking of girls under 16 years of age, though the girl herself proposed to defendant that he should bring the ladder and that she would elope with him. Reg. v. Robins, 1 Car. & K. 456, 457. Under a statute providing that the "taking away" of any female under the age of 18 years from her father for the purpose of concubinage shall be a felony, that the female was induced to leave home, and the furnishing of money to defray her expenses, and the direction of her course in different | of ownership." In re Opinion of Justices, 13 Fla. 699, 701. By the "taking" of property, within the scope of the constitutional provision, is meant such an appropriation of it as deprives the owner of his title, or of a part of his title. Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247, 265. "Taking," as used in the Constitution, providing that "private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation first being paid," means a physical, tangible ap propriation of the property of another. Hurt v. City of Atlanta, 28 S. EL 65, 67, 100 Ga. 274. Private property is "taken for public use" when it is appropriated to the common use of the public at large. Craighill v. Lambert, 18 Sup. Ct. 217, 218, 168 U. S. 611, 42 L. Ed. 599. Under constitutions which provide that property shall not be "taken or damaged" without compensation, it is universally held |