GARNISHMENT.

II. PERSONS AND PROPERTY SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT.

61 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Executor not liable as garnishee respecting legacy in absence of statute. In re Durel, 10 F. (2d) 448.

Legacy held not subject to garnishment by creditors prior to decree of distribution.-Id.

GAS.

14(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Court's prior refusal of receiver's application for permission to shut off gas held not waiver or estoppel, available against receiver.-Landon v. Kansas City Gas Co., 10 F. (2d) 263.

Customers held liable on implied contract for increased rates fixed by court.-Id.

Customer dealing with receiver held bound by knowledge of law limiting powers.-Id.

Receiver, whose previous application for permission to shut off gas to consumers refusing to pay increased rates was refused, held entitled to recover on implied contract without renewing application.-Id.

14(1) (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Allowance of 10 per cent. of replacement cost as going concern value held proper.-Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 10 F. (2d) 252.

Value of property held properly proved by actual appraisement.-Id.

Utility entitled to return reasonably sufficient to insure financial soundness.-Id.

Eight per cent. held fair return.-Id. Allowance for depreciation held deductible as expense.-Id.

14(1)(U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Elements of value of property for rate-making purposes stated. New York & Richmond Gas Co. v. Prendergast, 10 F. (2d) 167.

Conclusion standard was unreasonable, arbitrary and unwarranted held supported by evidence.-Id.

Maximum rates fixed for gas, and forbidding of service charge, held confiscatory.-Id. Eight per cent. held reasonable return.-Id.

GIFTS.

I. INTER VIVOS.

4 (App.D.C.) Delivery with intent of donor to divest himself of title essential to valid "gift inter vivos."-Conlon v. Turley, 10 F. (2d) 890.

21 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Delivery may be made to third person as trustee for donee's benefit, even if donee does not know of gift until after donor's death.-Grissom v. Sternberger, 10 F. (2d) 764.

21 (App.D.C.) Delivery to agent or trustee for donee is sufficient to complete valid gift.-Conlon v. Turley, 10 F. (2d) 890.

28(2) (App.D.C.) Delivery of bonds to bank for donee and delivery of receipt to donee held valid gift of bonds.-Conlon v. Turley, 10 F. (2d) 890.

29 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Neither indorsement of stock certificates nor transfer on corporation's books, as required by statute, is essential to validity of gift of stock physically delivered (C. S. N. C. § 1164).-Grissom v. Sternberger, 10 F. (2d) 764.

30(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Letter directing bank to transfer money on donor's account to daughter's held not a gift inter vivos, where donor retained complete dominion over same. -Eschen v. Steers, 10 F. (2d) 739.

50 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Receiving dividends, voting stock, and acting as director held not to justify conclusion as matter of law that there no gift of stock before donor's death (Revenue Act Sept. 8, 1916, 39 Stat. 756).Grissom v. Sternberger, 10 F. (2d) 764.

was

II. CAUSA MORTIS.

66(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Letter directing bank to transfer money on donor's account to daughter's held not a gift causa mortis, where donor retained complete dominion over same. -Eschen v. Steers, 10 F. (2d) 739.

GRAND JURY.

9 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Where jurors summoned generally are by direction of court placed on grand jury, it is lawfully constituted.-Baker v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 60.

34 (App.D.C.) Indictment for bribery in connection with government oil leases held not vitiated by presence of assistant to Attorney General in grand jury room when matter was considered.-U. S. v. Fall. 10 F. (2d) 648; U. S. v. Doheny, 10 F. (2d) 651.

45(2) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Petitions for writs charge without bail present no exceptional cirof habeas corpus by person held on murder cumstances of peculiar urgency, to justify issuance by federal court of writ to state officers. -Ex parte Roberts, 10 F. (2d) 163.

45(3) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Federal court will diinto detention of person in alleged violation of rect habeas corpus to state officers, to inquire United States Constitution or laws, only in exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency.— Ex parte Roberts, 10 F. (2d) 163.

85(1) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) United States Attorney General presumed to have assured himself that federal convict will not be treated unjustly in state court.-Marsino v. Higgins, 10 F. (2d) 534.

92(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Extent of inquiry on habeas corpus to obtain discharge from confinement after conviction for offense stated.Cardigan v. Biddle, 10 F. (2d) 444.

92(1) (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Order of deportation must be sustained, if at all, on ground acted on by immigration officers.-Ex parte Turner, 10 F. (2d) 816.

Deportation order presumed regular, and sustained if supported by any view of evidence. -Id.

104 (U.S.D.C.R.I.) Warrant of removal granted, and writ of habeas corpus refused, where indictment raised prima facie case, and rebutting evidence raised doubtful questions. -Steeves v. Rodman, 10 F. (2d) 212.

14(2) (App.D.C.) Essentials of "estate by the entireties" stated.-American Wholesale Corporation v. Aronstein, 10 F. (2d) 991.

14(10) (App.D.C.) Neither husband nor wife can convey interest in estate by the entireties without the other's consent.-American Wholesale Corporation v. Aronstein, 10 F. (2d) 991.

14(11) (App.D.C.) Conveyance before insolvency to husband and wife as tenants by the entireties, and conveyance of husband's interest to wife after insolvency, held not in fraud of creditors.-American Wholesale Corporation v. Aronstein, 10 F. (2d) 991.

Judgment against husband not lien on land held as tenant by the entireties.-Id.

IV. DISABILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF COVERTURE.

(F) Crimes.

107 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Husband and wife could not legally conspire with each other.Dawson v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 106.

108 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Presumption that criminal act of wife was at husband's coercion does not arise in prosecution for transportation of girl for purpose of prostitution.-Dawson v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 106.

V. WIFE'S SEPARATE ESTATE.
(A) What Constitutes.

129(4) (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Wife held not estopped by failure to record husband's agreement, to claim realty conveyed to her in consideration of her joinder in deed to other property.-Folsom v. Seapy, 10 F. (2d) 322.

X. ENTICING AND ALIENATING.

333(3) (App.D.C.) Generally, statements of alienated spouse admissible in action for alienation of affection.-Trenerry v. Fravel, 10 F. (2d) 1011.

IMMIGRATION.

See Aliens, 46-54.

IMPROVEMENTS.

See Municipal Corporations, 278-348.

INDEMNITY.

13(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Shipbuilding corporation, failing to properly perform contract to repair vessel, held liable to shipowner for amount of recovery against it for damage to cargo.-Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. Joseph Gutradt Co., 10 F. (2d) 769.

15(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Shipowner not required to inspect all clapper valves, some of which were covered with cargo, because of Constructive notice from finding one valve defective. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation v. Joseph Gutradt Co., 10 F. (2d) 769.

INDIANS.

on

15(1) (U. S. C. C. A. Okl.) Restrictions sales by original allottees held not applicable to inherited lands.-U. S. v. Gypsy Oil Co., 10 F. (2d) 487.

16(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Oil and gas lease by heir of deceased Creek Indian held "conveyance" requiring statutory approval.-U. S. v. Gypsy Oil Co., 10 F. (2d) 487.

16(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Approval of oil and gas lease by guardian of minor full-blood Creek Indian held valid without approval of Secretary of the Interior.-U. S. v. Gypsy Oil Co., 10 F. (2d) 487.

18 (U.S.D.C.Okl.) Succession to lands owned by Indians controlled by state statute. -Kunkel v. Barnett, 10 F. (2d) 804.

Allotment does not create ancestral estate, or estate by inheritance, but one by purchase, as affects right of heir not of the blood of the allottee to inherit.-Id. to

38 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Allegation as time of possession of liquor in Indian country held insufficient.-Lynch v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 947. Indictment for possessing liquor in Indian country held insufficient.-Id.

V. REQUISITES AND SUFFICIENCY OF ACCUSATION.

71 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Requirements as to certainty in charge of indictment stated.Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 102.

71 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sufficient recital of details required to enable defendants to make defense, and to protect them against another prosecution.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

71 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Rule as to sufficiency of charge in indictment stated.-Lynch v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 947.

Indictment

110(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) in language of Harrison Narcotic Act sufficient.Ray v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 359.

110(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment in exact language of statute is insufficient, where statute does not contain all elements of offense. -Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 102.

114 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Indictment for second offenses against National Prohibition Act held sufficient.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 492. 119 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment held sufficient to charge conspiracy to violate Tariff Act and National Prohibition Act.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F.(2d) 339.

119 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Allegation found to be unintelligible as to means of carrying out scheme might be regarded as immaterial or surplusage, when another means alleged (Const. Amend. 5).-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 711.

121 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Remedy of accused desiring further details is application for bill of particulars.-Perez v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 352.

121(1) (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Objection that inmotion in arrest of judgment, remedy being by dictment was indefinite could not be raised by asking bill of particulars.-Horowitz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 286.

VI. JOINDER OF PARTIES, OFFENSES, AND COUNTS, DUPLICITY, AND

ELECTION.

125(51⁄2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Competent to charge conspiracy to violate more than one penal statute.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

125(5/2) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Conspiracy to commit several offenses may be charged in same count of indictment.-Chapman v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 124.

125(19) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Indictment may charge in single count violation of statute in several ways.-Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 102.

125(19) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Indictment which set forth two modes of operation by which defendants planned and carried out their scheme to defraud held not duplicitous.-Silkworth v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 711.

Various means used in committing offense may be joined in indictment without duplicity. -Id.

203 (U.S.C.C.A.Wis.) Good counts, held to support judgment on general verdict, sentences being for same period and running concurrently. -Neu v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 146.

INJUNCTION.

II. SUBJECTS OF PROTECTION AND
RELIEF.

(E) Public Officers and Boards and Municipalities.

125(19) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Indictment in language of Harrison Narcotic Act sufficient, and not bad for duplicity.-Ray v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 359.

125 (24) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Charging alteration of bills of lading held not multifarious.Dell'Aira v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 102.

125 (43) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Scheme, in furtherance of which mail was used, charged to be to defraud insurance order and not also policy holders.-Baker v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 60.

130 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Count charging unlawful sale and distribution of morphine held properly united with count charging receiving, buying, selling, and facilitating. transportation and concealment after unlawful importation.Perez v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 352.

lection held entitled to injunction restraining Secretary and Commissioner from rejecting it.— Work v. Read, 10 F. (2d) 637.

85 (2) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Jurisdiction of federal court to enjoin state officials from enforcing state law exercised only in case reasonably free from doubt and when necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury.-Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 10 F. (2d) 515.

VI. WRIT, ORDER OR DECREE, SERVICE, AND ENFORCEMENT.

210 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Object of supplementary injunction is to specify and apply original injunction to actions and objects nonexistent when case was decided.--Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co., 10 F. (2d) 727.

VII. MOTION TO QUASH OR DISMISS, AND DEMURRER.

136 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Motion to quash indictment addressed to court's discretion.-Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401.

136 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Motion to quash is in substance a plea in bar.-U. S. v. McConnell, 10 F. (2d) 977.

138 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Motion to quash held bad as alleging mere conclusions and no facts.Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401.

139 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Refusal to permit withdrawal of pleas of not guilty and filing of motion to quash indictment held within court's discretion. Colbeck v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 401.

150 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Rule governing consideration of demurrer to indictment stated.Lynch v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 947.

In determining sufficiency of facts alleged to make available judgment against defendant in defense of another prosecution for same offense, indictment and possible judgment alone can be considered, evidence being prospective and unknown.-Id.

IX. ISSUES, PROOF, AND VARIANCE.

169 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Evidence of acts in furtherance of conspiracy by defendants' corporation held admissible.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

171 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Variance between allegation of prior offense and proof thereof in prosecution for third offense held not a fatal variance (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 101384 et seq.]).-McGill v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 972.

XI. WAIVER OF DEFECTS AND OBJECTIONS, AND AIDER BY VERDICT.

202 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Irregularity consisting of variance between allegation and proof as to prior offense held cured by verdict (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 101384 et seq.]).-McGill v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 972.

202 (5) (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Objection that indictment was indefinite held cured by verdict.Horowitz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 286.

INSOLVENCY.

INSTRUCTIONS.

See Criminal Law, 759-847; Trial, 193-296.

INSURANCE.

I. CONTROL AND REGULATION IN
GENERAL.

4 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Statute passed after fire held inapplicable to loss.-Walz v. FidelityPhoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F.(2d) 22.

V. THE CONTRACT IN GENERAL. (A) Nature, Requisites, and Validity. 131 (1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) In absence of prohibitory statute, oral contracts of insurance are valid and enforceable.-National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 10 F. (2d) 483.

Washington statute held not to prohibit oral contracts for fire insurance.--Id.

Oral contract of insurance is presumed to contemplate issuance of a policy in usual form.-Id. 131 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Fire insurance agent held authorized to bind his principal by oral contract for limited time.-National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 10 F. (2d) 483.

Extent of apparent authority determines whether fire insurance agent has authority to bind his principal by oral contract.-Id.

(B) Construction and Operation. 146(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Automobile rider, issued in consideration of additional premium. construed to sustain indemnity sought by assured.-Wright v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 10 F. (2d) 281.

Court justified in resolving ambiguity, which could have been easily removed, against insurer.-Id.

IX. AVOIDANCE OF POLICY FOR MISREPRESENTATION, FRAUD, OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONDITION, (B) Matters Relating to Property or Interest Insured. 273 (U.S.D.C.Md.) Implied warranty of seaworthiness in marine time policy to stated extent. Sorenson & Neilson v. Boston Ins. Co., 10 F. (2d) 563.

Marine liability policy vitiated by insured send

loss

X. FORFEITURE OF POLICY FOR BREACH OF PROMISSORY WARRANTY, COVENANT, OR CONDITION SUBSEQUENT. (A) Grounds in General. 311(3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Mere open payable clause does not save appointee against defenses of breach of increased hazard and false swearing clauses, available against insured.-Orenstein v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 10 F. (2d) 754.

Mortgage interest clause in policy held not to exclude conditions of policy as against mortgagee, unless so stated in rider containing loss payable clause.-Id.

XI. ESTOPPEL, WAIVER, OR AGREEMENTS AFFECTING RIGHT TO AVOID

OR FORFEIT POLICY.

395 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Insurer, in view of prior nonwaiver agreement, held not to have waived defense of increase of hazard by not denying liability when rejecting proofs not correctly stating loss.-Orenstein v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 10 F. (2d) 754.

as

400 (U.S.C.C.A.Miss.) Denial of liability under double indemnity clause, because of exception thereto, held not contest of policy within meaning of contestability clause.-Sanders v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 10 F. (2d) 143. Incontestability clause does not prevent questioning extent of coverage.-Id.

400 (U.S.D.C.Mo.) Insurer's mere denial of liability is not contest of policy, within meaning of incontestable clause.-Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Peake, 10 F. (2d) 366.

XII. RISKS AND CAUSES OF LOSS.
(A) Marine Insurance.

-403 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Overturning of vessel held "peril of the sea," within policyOlympia Canning Co. v. Union Marine Ins. Co., 10 F. (2d) 72.

(E) Accident and Health Insurance.

455 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Death in encounter of insured, if innocent of aggression, or if he could not reasonably anticipate injury from his aggression, held "accidental."-Occidental Life, Ins. Co. v. Holcomb, 10 F. (2d) 125.

Death of aggressor, who knew or should have anticipated possibility of death in encounter, held not accidental.-Id.

XIII. EXTENT OF LOSS AND LIABILITY OF INSURER.

(B) Insurance of Property and Titles.

500 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Policies of insurance on use and occupancy of mill held open, and not valued; "not exceeding."-Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Jacksonville Oil Mill, 10 F. (2d) 54.

(E) Accident and Health Insurance. 527 (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Automobile rider, attached to policy covering injuries to assured "while riding in" car, construed.-Wright v. Etna Life Ins. Co., 10 F. (2d) 281.

in

529 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Insured's death encounter held not accidental, within double benefit provision of life policy.-Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Holcomb, 10 F. (2d) 125.

XIV. NOTICE AND PROOF OF LOSS. 553(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Absolute personal knowledge of insured that statement in proofs of loss was false not required to defeat recovery on fire policies.-Walz v. Fidelity-Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York, 10 F. (2d) 22.

553(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) False statement of insured in proofs of loss held false swearing within condition of policy, and not mere mat

ters of opinion.-Orenstein v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 10 F. (2d) 754.

555 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Insured held not estopped to contest for false swearing in proofs of loss, because of intention when taking nonwaiver agreement to contest for increased hazard.-Orenstein v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 10 F.(2d) 754.

559(1) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Breach of condition against false swearing is not waived by denial of liability if proofs of loss containing such swearing are in fact offered.-Orenstein v. Star Ins. Co. of America, 10 F. (2d) 754.

XVIII. ACTIONS ON POLICIES.

626 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Complaint held sufficient to authorize service on president or treasurer as officer of unincorporated association (General Associations Law [Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 29] § 13).-Bobe v. Lloyds, 10 F. (2d) 730.

Services of process on corporation acting as treasurer for insurance underwriting syndicates held to give court jurisdiction (General Associations Law [Consol. Laws N. Y. c. 29] § 13; Civil Practice Act N. Y. § 229).—Id.

640(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Breach of condition or warranty in policy is affirmative defense, required to be pleaded.-National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 10 F. (2d) 483. 645(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Defenses in action on oral contract of fire insurance held not available for want of pleading.-National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Milligan, 10 F. (2d) 483.

INTERNAL REVENUE.

2 (U.S.D.C.Neb.) Tax graduated on value of interest of surviving spouse held to violate constitutional limitation on power of Congress to lay direct taxes.-Munroe v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 230.

2 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Gift tax held a direct tax, invalid for want of apportionment (Revenue Act June 2, 1924, § 319 [Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 6336%s]; Const. art. 1, § 2, cl. 3).— McNeir v. Anderson, 10 F. (2d) 813.

7 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Compensation of real estate expert in condemnation proceedings by city held not exempt from income tax, as money received for services as instrumentality of state government.-Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 F. (2d) 3. 7 (U.S.D.C.Conn.) Income from securities bequeathed to trustee held taxable income.Warner v. Walsh, 10 F. (2d) 155.

7 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Annuity paid to legatee under will held not taxable income.-Beatty v. Heiner, 10 F.(2d) 390.

9 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Issuance of stock held not conclusive that substantial value was received by corporation, as respects liability for profits tax.-Gus Sun Booking Exchange Co. v. Deane, 10 F. (2d) 378.

Definition of "invested capital," in statute providing for profits tax, is conclusive on administrative officials and courts.-Id.

Assessment of profits tax on basis of stock issued held not justified, where corporation's capital was merely nominal.-Id.

236 (19) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence held to sustain conviction for manufacturing liquor (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 101384 et seq.1).-Rouda v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 916.

IX. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, AND FORFEITURES.

247 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Seizure of British vessel held justified.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

38 (U.S.C.C.A.III.) Declaration in suit to recover income tax paid held too indefinite and uncertain.-Lyons v. Reinecke, 10 F. (2d) 3. Burden on plaintiff, suing to recover income tax paid, to allege facts showing income not subject to tax.-Id.

38 (U. S. D. C. Neb.) Individual beneficiary may sue to recover back federal estate tax paid by executor.-Munroe v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 230.

38 (U.S.D.C.Ohio) Court must decide right to recover profits tax, irrespective of motive of Secretary of the Treasury in imposing tax.Gus Sun Booking Exchange Co. v. Deane, 10 F. (2d) 378.

38 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Income tax, voluntarily but erroneously paid, held recoverable.-Beatty v. Heiner, 10 F. (2d) 390.

44 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Prohibition director not punishable as person employed under "revenue law" or "revenue provisions of a law."-U. S. v. McConnell, 10 F. (2d) 973.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

I. POWER TO CONTROL TRAFFIC.
22 [New, vol. 8A Key-No. Series]

(U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Congress may prohibit all sales of intoxicating liquor, if suitable provision is made for nonbeverage sales.-Sherman v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 17.

22 [New, vol. 8A Key-No. Series] (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Eighteenth Amendment gave the United States all the power necessary and appropriate to carry out object of the amendment.-U. S. v. Gaffney, 10 F. (2d) 694.

IV. LICENSES AND TAXES. 108(1) (App.D.C.) Proceeding to cancel permit for denaturing plant held prosecuted under proper section of Prohibition Act.-Herman Chemical Co. v. Mellon, 10 F. (2d) 887.

108(9) (App.D.C.) Order revoking permit to operate denaturing plant held not void for delayed entry.-Herman Chemical Co. v. Mellon, 10 F. (2d) 887.

VI. OFFENSES.

131 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Sale of medicinal preparation to purchaser, who intends to use it as evidence, not an offense.-Sherman v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 17.

138 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Importing liquor is unlawful.-Ford v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 339.

VIII. CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 213 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Indictment for maintenance of nuisance held sufficient.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 492.

215 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Indictment for unlawful sales of liquor held sufficient.-Furlong v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 492.

236 (62) (U.S.C.C.A.R.I.) Evidence held to warrant finding that accused unlawfully possessed liquor found in his dwelling.-Horowitz v. U. S., 10 F. (2d) 286.

Evidence held to warrant finding that accused unlawfully possessed liquor found in his garage. -Id

Affidavit held to sufficiently show that liquor to be searched for was left at warehouse.-Id. 249 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Searching officer, after lawful entry, held not limited by terms of warrant as related to liquors which he could lawfully seize.-U. S. v. Old Dominion Warehouse, 10 F. (2d) 736.

Lapse of time between seeing of liquor enter warehouse and search therefor held not too long.-Id.

249 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendants may not question whether federal officer's entry into building, in basement of which defendants were manufacturing liquor, was lawful, as not being trespass on premises occupied by defendants.Rouda v. U. S.. 10 F. (2d) 916.

249 (U.S.D.C.Cal.) Prohibition agent may personally receive and execute search warrants. U. S. v. Nestori, 10 F. (2d) 570. Search warrants directed to divisional chief. or general prohibition administrator and his assistants, agents, etc., held good.-Id.

251 (U.S.C.C.A.Conn.) Statute providing that property taken under revenue law shall be irrepleviable, and deemed to be in "custody of the law," does not apply to seizure under National Prohibition Act.-The Blairmore I, 10 F. (2d) 35.

der National Prohibition Act is by suit for conRemedy of owner of ship and cargo seized undemnation.-Id.

Ship captured in violation of National Prohibition Act not entitled to safe conduct, because it was taken into port in wrong district.-Id.

on

X. ABATEMENT AND INJUNCTION. 264 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Tenant's right to maintain lease against landlord was gone, breaking covenant to obey National Prohibition Law, and government, in abatement proceedings, may assist landlord to recover premises (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 101384 et seq.). U. S. v. Gaffney, 10 F. (2d) 694.

265 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) One may maintain nuisance without having knowledge of actual sales of liquor (National Prohibition Act. tit. 2, §§ 21-23 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 10138jj-101381⁄2]).—U. S. v. Gaffney, 10 F.

(2d) 694.

271 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) On bill to abate liquor nuisance, all persons whose right, title, or interest may be affected by granting relief sought are proper parties (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, §§ 21-23 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, 88 101382jj-10138%).-U. S. v. Gaffney, 10 F. (2d) 694.

275 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Evidence as to continuance of acts productive of liquor nuisance after filing bill for abatement is admissible.U. S. v. Gaffney, 10 F. (2d) 694.

JEOPARDY.

See Criminal Law, 196-202.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES AND BUSI-
NESS TRUSTS.

19 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Admission in evidence of exhibit in which provision made for plaintiff's