VERDICT. The intent is to be gathered from all the circumstances surrounding this case; from the acts and words of the defendant and any and every other matter of testimony that has come before you in this case and in this court-room, which will throw light upon the point of whether his intention was to convert the property to his own use; or whether what he did was done under an honest belief that he had a right and was protecting some other person's interest under a claim of right. If you have a reasonable doubt as to his intent, that doubt should inure to his acquittal. Verdict, not guilty. JOHN WANAMAKER v8. GEORGE W. BENN. Assumpsit-Book Account-Goods Sold and Delivered-Guaranty If a guaranty is prospective in its character to cover future credits, the party tendering it is entitled to notice of its acceptance, and the party receiving it, and for whom it is intended, is bound to give reasonable notice of its acceptance, or the party offering it will not be bound by it. (May 2, 1901.) LORE, C. J., and SPRUANCE and BOYCE, J. J., sitting. Robert H. Van Dyke for plaintiff. Henry Ridgely Jr., and Frank M. Davis for defendant. FACTS-MOTION FOR NONSUIT. Superior Court, Kent County, April Term, 1901. ACTION OF ASSUMPSIT (No.-April Term, 1900) based upon a written guaranty for the payment of a book account for goods sold and delivered to another person. The said instrument, which was admitted in evidence, was in the following form: "Form 4.-Monthly. 500-8, 22, 98. "In consideration of the firm of John Wanamaker, as now constituted or hereafter formed, granting credit for the purchase of merchandise to Mrs. Grover (Rebecca A.) Smith at present residing at No. 225 South Ninth St., Philadelphia, Pa., to an amount not exceeding Fifty dollars per month, I hereby agree to guarantee the payment of, and will pay on demand, said monthly accounts on the fifth day of the month following said purchases. Notice of separate transactions is waived. This guarantee is to continue from month to month until revoked by me in writing and the amount due thereon is settled in full to date of revocation. Witness "Dated the 3d day of September, 1895. "G. W. BENN." The receipt and acceptance of the above guaranty by the plaintiff were proved. Plaintiff also proved his book account against Mrs. Grover Smith, and then rested. Ridgely, for defendant, moved for a nonsuit or two grounds: First. That it had not been averred in the narr, nor proved, that the plaintiff ever gave notice to the defendant that he accepted his guaranty. Second. That there was no proof of any notice given to the defendant of any transaction with Mrs. Grover Smith or of any default upon her part. ARGUMENT-OPINION. Taylor & Co. vs. McClung, 2 Houst., 24; Farmers' Bank vs. Tatnall, 7 Houst., 287; Maybery & Co. vs. Bainton & Co., 2 Harr., 24. Van Dyke, for plaintiff:-The principle of law contended for by the defendant's counsel does not apply to this case. The common counts in the narr are sufficient of themselves, and averments of acceptance of the contract, by the plaintiff, and notice of the same to the defendant are unnecessary. There is an express promise in this contract to pay and an express waiver of notice. LORE, C. J.:-We think this nonsuit must be granted. The principle of law contended for by the plaintiff is very clearly settled in the cases of Taylor & Co. vs. McClung, 2 Houst., 24; and Farmers' Bank vs. Tatnall, 7 Houst., 287. In the former case the statement is as follows: "If the guaranty be prospective in its character to cover future credits, the party tendering it, is entitled to notice of its acceptance, and the party receiving it and for whom it is intended, is bound to give reasonable notice of its acceptance, or the party offering it will not be bound by it." Let a nonsuit be entered. SYLLABUS. THE EQUITABLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST COMPANY v8. JOHN P. DONAHOE, Collector of Taxes for the Northern District of the City of Wilmington. Court in Banc-Adams Tax Law-Constitution-Statute; Con- I. The title of the original act was "An Act to Equalize Taxation for State and County Purposes;" and of the amending act, "An Act to Amend Chapter 381, Volume 20, Laws of Delaware, entitled 'An Act to Equalize Taxation for State and County Purposes.'" The original act provided for taxation for State and County purposes; but a section of the amending act provided for Municipal Taxation also. Held that so much of the amending act as related to taxation for municipal purposes was unconstitutional and void, under Section 16, Article 2, of the Constitution of this State; because not embraced within the title of the act, which was confined to taxation for State and county purposes. 2. When the repealing act is void and inoperative from the beginning, it does not effect a repeal of the original act. 3. But when an amending act expressly repeals a section, or part of an original act, and substitutes an unconstitutional section, or part, radically different in some of its provisions, in lieu thereof; the section, or part, of the original act so repealed, is not retained or restored; unless the repealing clause itself is void. In cases of express repeal, the old section remains valid, only where the amending act is totally void, including the repealing clause; and therefore the original act was never in fact repealed. 4. Where the unconstitutional part of an act cannot be separated from the residue without emasculating the statute, the act is unconstitutional and void. 5. Where the object for which a tax is levied is elimated from the original act, because of the invalidity of the amending act, the statute is left without a purpose, and is anullity. (May 16, 1901). LORE, C. J., and SPRUANCE, GRUBB, PENNEWILL and BOYCE, Associate Justices, sitting. Williard Saulsbury and Anthony Higgins for plaintiff. OPINION. John H. Rodney, Henry C. Conrad and Peter L. Cooper Jr., for defendant. Court in Banc. ACTION OF ASSUMPSIT (No. 143, May Term, 1900). Case stated in the Superior Court for New Castle County. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. LORE, C. J.:-This is an action of assumpsit, brought by the Equitable Guarantee and Trust Company, the plaintiff, to recover from John P. Donahoe, Collector of Taxes for the Northern District of the City of Wilmington, the defendant, certain taxes assessed for the years 1898 and 1899 against the plaintiff, under the provisions of Chapter 381, Volume 20, Laws of Delaware, passed May 29, 1897, entitled "An Act to Equalize Taxation for State and County Purposes," and under the provisions of Chapter 24, Volume 21, Laws of Delaware, approved May 25, 1898, entitled "An Act to Amend Chapter 381, Volume 20, of the Laws of Delaware, entitled 'An Act to Equalize Taxation for State and County Purpose;'' which said taxes were paid by the plaintiff under protest. The plaintiff claims that these acts, collectively known as the Adams Tax Law, are unconstitutional, null and void, for the following reasons: First, because neither the title of the original act of 1897 (Chapter 381, Volume 20), nor of the amending act of 1898 (Chapter 24, Volume 21), discloses the subject of municipal taxation, which is embraced in the text of the amending act, and is therefore within the inhibition of Section 15, Article 2 of the Constitution of 1897. Second, because the title is deceptive, false and misleading; in that it claims to be an act “to equalize," when in fact the provisions |