XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST. 970 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Objection that indictment was indefinite held cured by verdict, and could not be raised by motion in arrest of judgment.-Horowitz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 286, XIV. JUDGMENT. SENTENCE, AND FINAL COMMITMENT. 996 (2) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) District Court is not justified in altering sentence in course of execution to provide for carrying out terms of probation.-Archer v. Snook, 10 F. (2d) 567. 1001 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Trial court held to have jurisdiction, after term and after affirmance on appeal, to hear petition for probation; "suspend:" "impose;" "imposition;" "execution;" "imposition of sentence."-Kriebel v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 762. Suspension of execution of sentence is not an unauthorized setting aside or alteration thereof.-Id. 1001 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Indefiniteness of length of probation is not in itself fatal.-Archer v. Snook, 10 F.(2d) 567. Probation will not fail for lack of definiteness in its original conditions.-Id.. "Sentence," as used in probation law, is used in opposition to probation.-Id. District Court cannot impose imprisonment sentence, and provide for its suspension and for probation after partly executed.-Id. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER TIORARI. (A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and Right of Review. 1023 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Order denying return of goods is no less final because, as relates to suppression of evidence, it may be interlocutory.-Dowling v. Collins, 10 F.(2d) 62. Orders on preliminary motions and petitions in criminal case for return of goods final and reviewable.-Id. (B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review. 1030(1) (App.D.C.) Appellate court may correct error vitally affecting issue, without objection, exception, or assignment.-Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 900. 1036(1) (App.D.C.) Cross-examination concerning letters apparently written by defendant held proper, or not error calling for correction without objection.-Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 900. 1036 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Court's crossexamination of defendant, to which no objection was taken, held not prejudicial error.-Marin v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 271. 1036(3) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Testimony of independent transactions held admissible in conspiracy trial.-Thompson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d). 781. 1048 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Assignments of error, having no basis in exceptions taken at trial, present nothing for review.-Cholacoff v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 505. 1048 (App.D.C.) Appellate court may correct error vitally affecting issue, without objection, exception, or assignment.-Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 900. cross 1054(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Court's examination of defendant, to which no exception was taken, held not prejudicial error.Marin v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 271. 1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Alleged error in instructions not considered, without exception, unless miscarriage of justice appears.-Marin v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 271. 1059(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Exception to instruction held insufficient.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401. (C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause, and Effect Thereof. 1072 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Allowance of writ of error in noncapital criminal cases is matter of right.-Hostetter v. Symes, 10 F. (2d) 109. 1076 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Right to writ of error in noncapital cases exists without giving security for costs.-Hostetter v. Symes, 10 F. (2d) 109. 1080 (U.S.C.C.A.) On belief writ of error is for delay, extension of time for return denied. Howell v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 504. 1080 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Writ of error must be filed in district court rendering judgment in order to confer jurisdiction on Circuit Court of Appeals.-Hostetter v. Symes, 10 F. (2d) 109. 1084 (U.S.C.C.A.) Writ of error operates as supersedeas, requiring prisoner's return to custody of District Court, to which his application for bail will be permitted.-Howell v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 504. (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record. 1086(14) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Assignments of error in admitting testimony held to present nothing for review.-Cholacoff v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 505. (E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs. 1129(1) (App.D.C.) Appellate court may correct error vitally affecting issue, without objection, exception, or assignment.-Schwartz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 900. (F) Dismissal, Hearing, and Rehearing. m1131(4) (U.S.C.C.A.) On belief writ of error is for delay, extension of time for return denied, and motion to dismiss entertained.Howell v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 504. 1132 (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Delay in having cause heard on appeal held inexcusable.Garcia v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 355. (G) Review. 1134 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) In reviewing ruling admitting telegram in evidence, evidence subsequently received must be considered.Ford v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 339. 1134(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Court will not inquire whether evidence supports verdict_on other counts, when sentence is no greater than could be imposed on first count.-Chapman v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 124. in 1137(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Adjournment, which both parties acquiesced, cannot be held prejudicial.-Thompson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 781. 1144(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Prejudicial error not presumed, where alleged justification of court's comment on defendant's failure to testify omitted from record.-Cholacoff v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 505. 1149 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Motion to quash indictment addressed to court's discretion, and decision not reviewable on writ of error.Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401. 1159(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Circuit Court of Appeals will not substitute its judgment for that of jury on issues of fact on which there was conflicting testimony.-Assaid v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 752. 1162 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defect in form only disregarded by appellate court after verdict.Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 102. 11662 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.Va.) Refusal to permit accused to ask jurors if it would take any evidence to remove opinions they had formed held not prejudicial error.-Assaid v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 752. 11662(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Ill.) Court's suggestion that defense be called on for original of copy of telegram held not ground for reversal. -Thompson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 781. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 1169(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) In White Slave Act prosecution, evidence as to defendant being twice married and divorced held not error, but, if so, harmless.-Noland v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 768. 1169(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission of evidence of similar transactions, if unwarranted, held not reversible error.-Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 102. 1169(11) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Admission of evidence not prejudicial, where proof had been made before first objection.-Dawson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 106. Admission of record of former conviction on liquor charge not prejudicial, when evidence of liquor sales had been admitted without objection.-Id. of 1169 (11) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Admission evidence, of prior scheme, if incompetent, held harmless.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60. ex 1170(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Erroneous clusion of evidence not prejudicial, where facts are fully shown by other witnesses.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 492. 1170(2) (App.D.C.) Exclusion of motion picture of manufacturing process, verified by testimony, not prejudicial.-De Camp v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 984. 11702 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Exclusion of impeaching witnesses' testimony that they would not believe witness under oath, not error, and not prejudicial.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401. 117012 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Questioning accused as to association with sporting women held not prejudicial, in view of negative answer.-Dawson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 106. 1172(1) (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Instructions belittling defense of alibi held not prejudicial.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401. 1172(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Instruction as to duty of vessel's officers and crew to obey held favorable to defendants.-Ford v. U. Š., 10 F. (2d) 339. (H) Determination and Disposition Cause. of 1186(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Refusal to permit cross-examination of government witnesses as to unfriendly feelings toward defendant held erroneous, but not ground for reversal. -Furlong v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 492. Rejecting expert testimony discrediting plaintiff's expert and requiring defendant's expert to test liquor and give evidence as to its character held erroneous, but not ground for reversal.-Id. 1186(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Where evidence plainly warranted conviction, reversal would only be warranted for serious error in charging jury.-Garcia v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 355. affidavit of enforcement officer in former conviction held not prejudicial, where affiant testified in case, and opportunity for cross-examination was given.-Harris v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 358. 1186(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Admission of mer XVI. SUCCESSIVE OFFENSES AND 1202(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Record of forconviction competent evidence to prove the second offense.-Harris v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 358. XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME. 1216(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Prisoner sentenced to two years, with provision for probation after six months, cannot be discharged as having fully served his sentence.-Archer v. Snook, 10 F. (2d) 567. 1218 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Violator of National Motor Vehicle Theft Act may be sentenced to federal penitentiary outside district in which stolen vehicle was transported.-Whitaker v. Biddle, 10 F. (2d) 372. CUSTOMS AND USAGES. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Custom could not overcome expressed direction of buyer to ship goods by named vessel.-Hecht v. Alfaro, 10 F. (2d) 464. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Contract held plain on face, and evidence of custom limiting "equivalent delivery from warehouse" held inadmissible.-C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co.. 10 F. (2d) 293. tion for damages for bank's failure to follow 17 (App.D.C.) Evidence of custom in acdirections in transmitting personal credit to foreign country held inadmissible.-Shrewsbury v. Dupont Nat. Bank, 10 F. (2d) 632. 19(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Evidence held not to warrant finding of custom limiting term "equivalent delivery from warehouse," to certain period after last permissible sailing date.C. C. Mengel & Bro. Co. v. Handy Chocolate Co., 10 F. (2d) 293. CUSTOMS DUTIES. I. VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF CUSTOMS LAWS IN GENERAL. 6 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Foraker Act, as affects tax on Porto Rican bay rum, held not impliedly repealed (Foraker Act, § 3 [Comp. St. 837491; Act Feb. 4, 1909 [Comp. St. § 6123]). -Santoni & Co. v. Rafferty, 10 F. (2d) 788. II. GOODS SUBJECT TO DUTY, RATE, AND AMOUNT. 31 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Imported Porto Rican bay_rum is taxable at $2.20 per gallon under 1917 and 1918 War Revenue Acts, notwithstanding inaptness of phrase "imported into" the United States (War Revenue Act 1917, §§ 300, 301 [Comp. St. 1918. $§ 5986a, 8739b]; War Revenue Act 1918, § 600 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1910, §§ 5986e-59861]).-Santoni & Co. v. Rafferty, 10 F. (2d) 788. IV. ENTRY AND APPRAISAL OF GOODS, BONDS, AND WAREHOUSES. 82 (U. S. C. C. A. N. Y.) "Protest," within statute making liquidation of duties conclusive after one year, defined.-U. S. v. Lian, 10 F. (2d) 41. Importer may challenge legality of appraisement by filing protest with collector at time of assessment.-Id. V. PAYMENT AND COLLECTION, REFUNDING, AND DRAWBACK. 96 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Liquidation and payment of duties and delivery of goods to importers bars actions for additional duties after year from entry.-U. S. v. Lian, 10 F. (2d) 41. VII. VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS. 130 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Yacht subject to forfeiture for violating revenue laws.-Bush v. The Conejo, 10 F. (2d) 256. 133 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Court not required to shut its eyes to well-known facts relative to forfeiture for violating revenue laws.-Bush v. The Conejo, 10 F. (2d) 256. 134 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Inferred that cognac was obtained when contract had been made for it.-Benson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 309. Evidence held sufficient to prove that liquor was distilled spirits containing more than onehalf of 1 per cent, alcohol.-Id. Circumstances deposed to held to support finding that liquor was imported into the United States from Mexico.-Id. Evidence held to tend to prove unlawful concealment, and facilitating transportation and concealment, after importation of intoxicating liquors.-Id. DAMAGES. III. GROUNDS AND SUBJECTS OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. (A) Direct or Remote, Contingent, or Prospective Consequences or Losses. 18 (U.S. D. C. Ga.) Result intended by wrongdoer cannot be too remote for recovery of damages.-Richards v. International Agricultural Corporation, 10 F.(2d) 218. (B) Aggravation, Mitigation, and Reduction of Loss. 63 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Joint tort-feasor held entitled only to have sum secured by injured party against other joint tort-feasor credited on judgment.-Pacific States Lumber Co. v. Bargar, 10 F. (2d) 335. VIII. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, AND AS SESSMENT. (C) Proceedings for Assessment. 208 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Doctor's testimony presenting no professional reasons for conclusion held to constitute only scintilla of proof, not justifying submission to jury of question whether plaintiff's condition of health was caused by injury.-Hardy-Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker, 10 F. (2d) 277. DEATH. II. ACTIONS FOR CAUSING DEATH. (A) Right of Action and Defenses. 23 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Contributory negligence complete defense to action under Texas statute.-Truelson v. Whitney & Bodden Shipping Co., 10 F. (2d) 412. (B) Jurisdiction, Venue, and Limitations. 38 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Under Lord Campbell's Act, year for bringing action.-Pickles v. F. Leyland & Co., 10 F. (2d) 371. DEEDS. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyances in General. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 12 (App.D.C.) Commissioners of District held not authorized to open minor street in manner contemplated.-Rudolph v. Warwick, 10 F.(2d) 993. 19 (App.D.C.) Notice of hearing on petition to change zoning regulations, not signed by zoning commissioners individually, held sufficient (Zoning Act March 1, 1920, §§ 4. 5 [41 Stat. 500]).-Larrabee v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 986; Varela v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 989. Validity of proceedings to change zoning reg. ulations held not affected by motive of commission (Zoning Act March 1, 1920, §§ 4, 5 [41 Stat. 500]).—Id. Zoning commission's reasonable exercise of power cannot be controlled by courts (Zoning Act March 1, 1920, §§ 4, 5 [41 Stat. 500]).-Id. Property held unaffected by change in zoning regulations made after application for building permit (Zoning Act March 1, 1920, § 5 [41 Stat. 500]).-Id. 22 (App.D.C.) Regulations establishing stands for street vendors held valid.-Carranzo v. District of Columbia, 10 F. (2d) 983. DUE PROCESS OF LAW. See Constitutional Law, 278–318. ELECTION OF REMEDIES. 17(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Relinquishment of claims to land in dispute held sufficient consideration for compromise deed.-Roark v. Ford-3(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Party is bound by son Coal Co., 10 F. (2d) 70. IV. PLEADING AND EVIDENCE. 211(1) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to sustain finding of lack of mental capacity, vitiating deed. Clarke v. Franklin, 10 F. (2d) 631. 211(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to show fraudulent procurement of deed, warranting cancellation.-Roark v. Fordson Coal Co., 10 F. (2d) 70. 211(3) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to sustain finding of fraud, vitiating deed.-Clarke Franklin, 10 F. (2d) 631. V. sus 211(4) (App.D.C.) Evidence held to tain finding of undue influence, vitiating deed.Clarke v. Franklin, 10 F. (2d) 631. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. See Executors and Administrators; Wills. DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT. See Appeal and Error, 786. II. INVOLUNTARY. 81(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Possible invalidity of settlement agreement, pursuant to which suit was dismissed, held not ground for vacating order of dismissal.-Baldwin Law Pub. Co. v. Mog, 10 F. (2d) 269. Decree dismissing action not vacated because of subsequent dispute between litigant and counsel or invalidity of settlement agreement.-Id. election of remedy, where second remedy is based on theory irreconcilable with first.-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Connecticut Brass & Mfg. Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 913. Pursuing remedy in conversion does not bar claimant from asserting title.-Id. Petition for preference, filed by United States against receivers, asserting contract whereby title of raw materials remained in United States, and alleging commingling, held assertion of claim in tort for conversion, and not waiver of right of action in tort.-Id. Claimant may pursue consistent remedies as long as he desires, within the periods of limitation, until justice has been administered.-Id. 3(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Election of one remedy does not bar resort to another, unless they are inconsistent.-Union Trust Co. of Spokane v. Wiseman, 10 F. (2d) 558. Suit on note not barred by institution of suit to foreclose mortgage securing it.-Id. 7(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) When election of remedies made stated.-Miles v. Lavender, 10 F. (2d) 450. 7(1) (U.S.D.C.Or.) Any decisive act, with knowledge of rights, such as institution of suit, constitutes election of remedy.-Union Trust Co. of Spokane v. Wiseman, 10 F. (2d) 558. 7(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Letter of United States attorney, notifying receivers of claim, held not election of remedies, precluding suit to establish trust in materials intermingled with others.-Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER Connecticut Brass & Mfg. Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 913. ELECTRICITY. 17 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Company not under duty to inspect consumer's apparatus.-Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Deckard, 10 F. (2d) 66. Company, knowing defects in consumer's apparatus, liable for injuries to his employé.-Id. 18(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Person, knowing danger, negligent in coming in contact with electric wire.-Barnett v. Des Moines Electric Co., 10 F. (2d) 111. Handling broken electric wire held contributory negligence.-Id. has 19(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Defendant burden of proof of contributory negligence.— Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Deckard, 10 F. (2d) 66. 19 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Finding death caused by electric current and not by lightning held not result of speculation.-Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Deckard, 10 F.(2d) 66. 19(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Whether company knew of defective condition of consumer's apparatus held for jury.-Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Deckard, 10 F.(2d) 66. on 19(13) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Instruction electric company's liability for death of consumer's employé held not at fatal variance with declaration.-Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Deckard, 10 F. (2d) 66. Instruction held not erroneous as imposing on electric company duty of inspecting consumer's apparatus.-Id. Instruction on question whether consumer's employé violated superior's order held not erroLeous.-Id. Instruction on electric company's liability for death of consumer's employé held not misleading.-Id. EMINENT DOMAIN. 1. NATURE, EXTENT, AND DELEGATION OF POWER. 2(1) (App.D.C.) Zoning Act held not deprivation of private property, in violation of Constitution (Zoning Act March 1, 1920 [41 Stat. 500]; Const. Amend. 5).-Larrabee v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 986; Varela v. Bell, 10 F. (2d) 989. 61 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) That private interests benefited or defray expenses of relocating highway held not to effect validity of proceeding (Const. Ohio, art. 1. § 19; Const. U. S. Amends. 5, 14).-Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co., 10 F. (2d) 759. 274(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Injunctive relief will not be granted for errors merely procedural in relocating highway.-Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co., 10 F. (2d) 759. 300 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Evidence held to sustain finding that relocation of highway was public necessity, and not result of collusion to use power of eminent domain for private purposes (Const. Ohio, art. 1, § 19; Const. U. S. Amends. 5, 14; Gen. Code Ohio, § 7214).Weaver v. Pennsylvania-Ohio Power & Light Co., 10 F. (2d) 759. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. See Constitutional Law, 212–249. (A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent of Jurisdiction in General. 24 (U.S.D.C.III.) Forfeitures not favored in equity, and enforced only where necessary to sustain rights of another.-Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F. (2d) 823. 39(1) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Equity will retain jurisdiction to give full and final relief.-Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Peake, 10 F. (2d) 366. (C) Principles and Maxims of Equity. 54 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Equity acts in præsenti.-Lyon v. Boh, 10 F. (2d) 30. 65(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Defendant's allegations, challenging plaintiff's right to equitable relief, owing to its unclean hands, proper defenses.-Folberth Auto Specialty v. Trico Products Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 365. 65(2) (U.S.D.C.III.) Plaintiff, in patent infringement suit, held not to have come with unclean hands, due to representation of prior adjudication.-Connecticut Telephone and Electric Co. v. Brown & Caine, 10 F. (2d) 823. Plaintiff, in patent infringement suit, held not to have come with unclean hands, due to alleged erroneous representation concerning extent of business.-Id. 65 (3) (U.S.D.C.Minn.) Maxim, "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands," applies only to case where the unconscionable conduct of the plaintiff is directly connected with the subject-matter of the suit.-General Electric Co. v. Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co., 10 F. (2d) 851. IV. PLEADING. (E) Demurrer, Exceptions, and Motions. 263 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Verified answer, plainly stating plaintiff's wrongful acts were continuing, sufficient as against motion to strike counterclaim on ground acts were past acts.Folberth Auto Specialty v. Trico Products Corporation, 10 F. (2d) 365. Counterclaim growing out of subject-matter of bill and not independent thereof must be permitted to stand.-Id. X. DECREE AND ENFORCEMENT 427 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Judgment held properly entered against individual defendant under contract proved by him, though bill not amended to declare on contract.-Walker Grain Co. v. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co., 10 F. (2d) 272. EQUITY RULES. See Court Rules Cited. ERROR, WRIT OF. See Appeal and Error. ESCAPE. 5 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Convicts committed to federal penitentiary held subject to statute relating to escape.-U. S. ex rel. Silverstein v. Hecht, 10 F.(2d) 370. ESTATES. See Executors and Administrators; Wills. 8 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) That suction of overtaking vessel is frequent cause of collision is well known.-The Robert Fulton, 10 F. (2d) 424. 14 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Common knowledge that "nervous wreck' cases develop without known physical cause.-Hardy-Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker, 10 F. (2d) 277. VII. ADMISSIONS. 260 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Declarations of another, depending on finding of conspiracy, not received preliminarily, except with caution.Walz v. Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F. (2d) 22. VIII. DECLARATIONS. (A) Nature, Form, and Incidents in General. 272 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Statements against interest by insured and her agent, after assignments for security of causes of action on fire policies, held admissible.-Walz v. FidelityPhoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F. (2d) 22. 29 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Court takes judicial notice of statutory provisions.-Lyons v. Rein-359(3) ecke, 10 F. (2d) 3. 37 (U.S.C.C.A.Iowa) Neither court nor administrative body can take notice of laws of foreign country.-Smith v. Hays, 10 F. (2d) 145. 37 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Judicial notice not taken of laws of foreign country.-In re Hannevig, 10 F. (2d) 941. Domestic law will be applied to claim for stock in foreign bank against bankrupt, where foreign law was neither pleaded nor proven. -Id. 46 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Courts take judicial notice of President's proclamation.-Vowinckel v. First Federal Trust Co., 10 F. (2d) 19. 48 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Common knowledge that, in war emergency, Navy Compensation Board could not personally approve prices of materials purchased under thousands of government contracts.-Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. West & Dodge Co., 10 F. (2d) 289. 48 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) General knowledge that practice of Shipping Board in letting vessels to persons financially irresponsible occasions loss to mercantile and shipping concerns.Palmer & Parker Co. v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 214. II. PRESUMPTIONS. 64 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) One is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.Lovett v. Faircloth, 10 F. (2d) 301. 73 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) There is no presump tion that common director or manager will deal unfairly with either corporation.-Wentz v. Scott, 10 F. (2d) 426. 75 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Failure of steamship company to produce witnesses to testify as to appearance and condition of tank rivets or rivets themselves raised presumption against owner. The City of Dunkirk, 10 F. (2d) 609. 77(1)(U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Counsel might take creditor's interest into account in deciding to submit to any inference drawn by not calling certain apparently material witnesses.Walz v. Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F. (2d) 22. 82 (U.S.D.C.La.) Presumed that state courts have full power to execute their own judgments, and that they are lawfully functioning.-Venice Hunting & Trapping Co. v. Salinovich, 10 F. (2d) 222. 89 (U.S.D.C.Mont.) Presumption of receipt of notice duly mailed overcome by proof to contrary and presumption of recording in ordinary course.-Leahy v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 617. IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND (A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues. X. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. XI. PAROL OR EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AF- (A) Contradicting, Varying, or Adding to 407 (2) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Bill of lading prima facie evidence of delivery to ship, but may be contradicted or explained.-The Muskegon, 10 F. (2d) 817. 418 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Admission of paro! evidence that president of corporation signed simple contract as agent of corporation held not violative of parol evidence rule.-Moore v. Consolidated Products Co., 10 F.(2d) 319. (D) Construction or Application of Language of Written Instrument. 448 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Resort had to prior communications in construing contracts doubtful and uncertain.-Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F. (2d) 467. 461(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Where final offer and acceptance is by telegram, resort will be had to prior correspondence to arrive at intent.Griffin Grocery Co. v. Richardson, 10 F.(2d) 467. XII. OPINION EVIDENCE. (A) Conclusions and Opinions of Witnesses in General. 474(8) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Exclusion of opinion testimony as to speed of truck which struck plaintiff held prejudicial error.-Nussbaum v. Atlas Laundry Co., 10 F. (2d) 353. Person of ordinary intelligence is presumed competent to express opinion as to speed of automobile.-Id. 4982 (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) Judge has discretion to be exercised without prejudice to litigant as to whether witness is qualified to express opinion.-Nussbaum v. Atlas Laundry Co., 10 F. (2d) 353. (D) Examination of Experts. 555 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Opinion based on subjective symptoms stated to doctor to qualify him to testify cannot be received.-Hardy-Burlingham Mining Co. v. Baker, 10 F. (2d) 277. Opinion based on subjective symptoms stated to physician to get treatment and cure are admissible.-Id. (F) Effect of Opinion Evidence. 571(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Common knowledge that "nervous wreck" cases develop without known physical cause, and claim must be based on definite and competent expert proof.-HardyBurlingham Mining Co. v. Baker, 10 F. (2d) 277. |