every reasonable doubt in favor of its validity. Thomas v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 85 S. E. 50, 100 S. C. 478. 4. While it is primarily for the legislature to decide whether a general law can be made applicable, it is ultimately a judicial question. Thomas v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 85 S. E. 50, 100 S. C. 478. 5. The classification made by a statute need not be one of mathematical precision, nor need it result in perfect equality; it being sufficient if it is reasonable in its main features. Thomas V. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 85 S. E. 50, 100 S. C. 478.

SUNDAY LAWS.

1. Criminal Code 1912, sec. 699, providing for the forfeiture of goods exposed for sale on Sunday, does not violate Const., art. I, sec. 4, declaring that the General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. State v. Hondros, 84 S. E. 781, 100 S. C. 242.

2. Const. U. S., amend. 5, and Const., art. I, sec. 5, providing for due process of law, held not violated by Criminal Code 1912, sec. 699, et seq., providing for the forfeiture of goods exposed for sale on Sunday. State v. Hondros, 84 S. E. 781, 100 S. C. 242.

SURETY.

1. Where there is no testimony tending to show that a party, whose name appeared irregularly on the back of a note at time of delivery, before the enactment of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act, signed as surety, such person will be treated as a maker, and a ver

dict directed against him. Bank of Inman v. Elliott, 84 S. E. 996, 100 S. C. 440.

TELEGRAPHS.

See Trial.

1. It was no defense, for error in transmission of a telegram, that it was intrusted for delivery to plaintiff, to an unauthorized person. Painter V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 293, 100 S. C. 64.

2. Punitive damages for mistake in transmission of a telegram could not be recovered, in the absence of a showing by plaintiff that the receiving agent understood the message or was negnigent in failing to understand it. Painter v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 293, 100 S. C. 64.

3. Though a message announcing the safety of plaintiff's son was read back, its transmission to read that the child was dead justified a submission of wilfulness. Painter v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 293, 100 S. C. 64.

4. In an action for mistake in transmission of a telegram, a requested charge held properly refused as misleading. Id.

5. An instruction that, if a telegraph company chooses to receive for transmission a message over the telephone to an agent in its office, it is subject to the same accountability as if the message was written and placed in its hands, held erroneous. Id.

6. The addressing of a telegram to the addressee "R. F. D. 1" is a direction to the telegraph company to use the mail for its delivery, and the company is not liable for delay thereby occasioned. Garner V. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 829, 100 S. C. 302.

7. An unsuccessful attempt to deliver personally a telegram which was directed to be delivered by mail does not render the company liable if it did not de

be put upon his voir dire unless a request therefor is made by a party to the action. Yarborough v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 84 S. E. 308, 100 S. C. 33.

3. It is for the Court, and not for the jury, to construe all instruments in writing. Saye v. Hill, 84 S. E. 307, 100 S. C. 21. 4. Admission of testimony in reply rests in the discretion of the trial Court. Smith v. UnionBuffalo Mills Co., 84 S. E. 422, 100 S. C. 115.

5. Where there is any competent evidence that presents any issuable fact from which more than one inference can be drawn, it should be left to the jury. Ashe v. Standard Oil Co., 84 S. E. 412, 100 S. C. 107.

6. References made by counsel to the existence of former boundary suit, the result not being mentioned, held not error. Holden v. Cantrell, 84 S. E. 826, 100 S. C. 265.

7. Under express provisions of Code Civil Proc., sec. 220, et seq., party moving for nonsuit on ground of variance between allegations of complaint and proof must show that he has been misled. Moore v. Marion Cotton Oil Co., 85 S. E. 52, 100 S. C. 499.

8. A charge of bad faith on the part of the prosecuting attorney in withholding testimony from the jury, involves constructive or actual fraud, design to deceive or neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty, due to an interested or sinister motive, and not honest mistake, and is not to be lightly made, and when made, should be clearly proven. State v. Griffin, 84 S. E. 876, 100 S. C. 331.

9. The failure of a prosecuting attorney to offer testimony as to facts known, or which could have been ascertained by counsel for defendants, does not warrant the conclusion that the testimony was suppressed with sinister motive, and was not prejudicial to defendants. Id.

a

WATERWORKS AND

SEWERAGE.

1. Where a petition by freeholders under Civil Code 1912, section 3015, prayed for an election on the question of the issuance of bonds for the construction alone of waterworks and sewerage systems, and the town council ordered an election on the question of issuing such bonds for the construction and maintenance of such systems, and it appeared, after a vote in favor of such issuance, that the cost of construction would probably consume the entire proceeds of the bond issue, the variance between the petition and submission did not affect the validity of the bonds as a debt of the corporation, and the moneys obtained upon the bonds may be used for the purpose of constructing such systems. Connelly v. Beason, 84 S. E. 297, 100 S. C. 74.

WILFULNESS.

1. Where a wilful trespass in taking personal property is alleged, the admission of testimony to show the circumstances which led to the taking, is within the discretion of the trial Judge. Williams v. Weekley, 84 S. E. 299, 100 S. C. 28.

2. Where an inference that a message was deliberately changed in transmission may be drawn from the evidnce, a nonsuit of action for punitive damages was properly refused. Painter V. W. U. Tel. Co., 84 S. E. 299, 100 S. C. 65.

3. In an action against a telegraph company for damages arising from its mistake either in transcribing a message telephone to its office, or in thereafter transmitting it, mere failure to correctly transcribe and transmit the message is not sufficient evidence upon which to base a verdict for punitive damages. Id. 4. In an action for damages alleged to have arisen from the wilful tort of another, the latter

may plead in defense any facts rebutting the allegations or inference of wilfulness, or which would, if established, mitigate the damages claimed in the complaint. Ashe v. So. Ry. Co., 84 S. E. 716, 100 S. C. 187. 5. Where the testimony does not suggest that the master had knowledge or notice of the decayed condition of a post, and fails to indicate that the master was guilty of any conscious wrong, the Court properly withdrew from the jury the issue as whether the injury was caused by the master's wilfulness, wantonness or recklessness. Bridgman v. So. Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 711, 100 S. C. 204. See Trespass.

Bennett v. Colleton Cypress Co., 84 S. E. 882, 100 S. C. 335.

WILLS.

1. To establish a contract for the making of mutual wills by parties, one of whom is deceased, the evidence must be definite, certain, clear and convincing. Dicks v. Cassels, 84 S. E. 878, 100 S. C. 341.

2. The testimony of the survivor is incompetent under Code Civil Proc., sec. 438, to establish against a decedent, an alleged contract between them, to make mutual wills in favor of each other. Id.

WITNESSES.

1. In a boundary suit, testimony of a former owner as to a conversation of a third person with his father, then the owner of the land, is not obnoxious to Code Civil Procedure 1912, sec. 438. Holden v. Cantrell, 84 S. E. 826, 100 S. C. 265.

2. In an action on a health indem

nity policy, insured's proofs of loss can be used to refresh his recollection of the statements made therein. Turner v. Columbia. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 84 S. E. 413, 100 S. C. 121.

3. In a prosecution for homicide, evidence that deceased did not

engage rooms in bawdy house for himself, another man, and accused's wife and daughter, held incompetent to contradict daughter's testimony that he did. State v. Tidwell, 84 S. E. 778, 100 S. C. 248.

4. A question which does not suggest an answer in the affirmative or negative, is not a "leading question." Smith v. UnionBuffalo Mills Co., 84 S. E. 422, 100 S. C. 115.

5. Under Code Civil Procedure 1912, sec. 438, in action to enforce agreement to make mutual wills surviving party to such agreement, held incompetent to testify to transactions and communications with the deceased party. Dicks v. Cassels, 84 S. E. 878, 100 S. C. 341. 6. Affidavit that the State's chief witness had some eight years before the trial stolen chickens from affiant was not such proof of conviction of crime as to render such witness incompetent. State v. Griffin, 84 S. E. 876, 100 S. C. 331.

7. Where the defendant in a civil action fails to produce testimony within his reach to contradict testimony introduced by plaintiff, the former cannot complain if the jury takes the view that defendant could not deny the charge. Jordan v. So. Ry. Co., 84 S. E. 871, 100 S. C. 284.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

1. "Accomplice." State v. Adams (S. C.), 84 S. E. 368, 100 S. C.

3. "Described." Livingston v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (S. C.), 84 S. E. 303, 100 S. C. 17. 4. "Mentioned." Livingston v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (S. C.), 84 S. E. 303, 100 S. C. 17. 5. "Leading question." Smith v. Union-Buffalo Mills Co. (S. C.), 84 S. E. 422, 100 S. C. 121. 6. "Account stated." Wakefield v. Spoon (S. C.), 84 S. E. 418, 100 S. C. 100.

7. "Overcharge on freight." Wichman v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S. C.), 84 S. E. 420, 100 S. C. 138.

8. "Due process of law." State v. Hondros (S. C.), 84 S. E. 781, 100 S. C. 242.

9. "Jurors in attendance."

State

12. "Abuse of discretion." State v. Griffin (S. C.), 84 S. C. 876, 100 S. C. 331.

13. "Bad faith." State v. Griffin, (S. C.), 84 S. E. 876, 100 S. C. 331.

14. "Highways." Speights v. Colleton County (S. C.), 84 S. E. 873, 100 S. C. 304.

15. "Mortgage." Bryan v. Boyd (S. C.), 84 S. E. 992, 100 S. C. 397.

16. "Officer of executive department." State v. Singleton (S. C.), 84 S. E. 989, 100 S. C. 465. 17. "Redeem." Bryan v. Boyd (S. C.), 84 S. E. 992, 100 S. C. 397.