leasing or operating for hire, a railroad, street railway, canal, steam boat line, and also any freight car company, car association, express company, sleeping car company, car corporation, or company, trustee or person in any way engaged in such business as a common carrier over a route acquired in whole or in part under the right of eminent domain, or under any grant from the government of the United States; the term "rate" shall be construed to mean "rate of charge for any. service rendered, or to be rendered;" the terms "rate," "charge," and "regulation," shall include joint rates, not charges and joint regulations, respectively; the term transmission company," shall include any company, receiver or other persons, owning, leasing or operating for hire any telegraph or telephone line; the term "freight" shall be construed to mean any property transported or received for transportation by any transportation company. The term "public service corporation" shall include all transporation and transmission companies, all gas, electric light, heat and power companies, and all persons authorized to exercise the right of eminent domain, or to use or occupy any right of way, street, alley or public highway, whether along, over or under the same, in a manner not permitted to the general public; the term 'person," as used in this article, shall include individuals, partnerships and corporations in the singular as well as plural number; the term "bond" shall mean all certificates or written evidences of indebtedness issued by any corporation and secured by mortgage or trust deed. The term "frank" shall mean any writing or token issued by or under authority of a transmission company, entitling the holder to any service from such company free of charge. The provisions of this article shall always be so restricted in their application as not to conflict with any of the provisions of the constitution of the United States, and as if the necessary limitations upon their interpretations had been herein expressed in each case. Sec. 35. After the second Monday in January, nineteen hundred and nine, the legislature may, by law, from time to time, alter, amend, revise, or repeal sections from nineteen to thirty six, inclusive, or any of them, or any amendments thereof, provided, that no amendment made under authority of this section shall .contravene the provisions of any part of this constitution other than the said sections last above referred to or any such amendments thereof. (For the sections of the Constitution on FellowServant. see February Number. vol. 5, page 243.) FIVE RULES OF PRACTICE. George M. Curtis, the celebrated trial lawyer of Massachussets early laid down for his individual guidance the following rules: 1. Pay little attention to the good side of the case at first, that side will take care of itself, but be sure you look well to the bad side-not forgetting to explore the strongest form of the proof, and knowing that an opportunity to prove even what is false may be used by your adversary, unless you have certain means to refute them. 2. Never try to disprove what has not been proven. and supply thereby the missing link in the enemies chain of evidence. 3. Never forget that an innocent person, with enemies, may be in a more dangerous condition than a guilty one with friends and influence. 4. The pulse of the people beat nearest together through the columns of the press, and a few wicked papers may tell a jury much in half hour accounts of an occurence that will shade the whole story by it un awares. 5. Persistent energy in the face of the genius and eloquence will bear its fruit in due season if properly directed, but endless travel in the wrong direction will never reach the place of destination; therefore, of all things, be safe in your theory and start out equipped for a trial of hardship. COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIAN TERRITORY. Important and well reasoned Cases disposed during the June Term, 1907. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. R'y Company VS. Letty Dickens. 1. Competency of Evidence-Other Injuries from same cause. In an action for the death of a person in a cinder pit, evidence that another accident had happened at the same place about a month later was incom petent. 2. Evidence that the pit had no barrier erected across the track, while another pit in the same yards had, was inadmissible, in the absence of any evidence. that the pits were the same, as that the barrier would have possibly prevented the injury. 3. Assumption of Risk.- A servant working in a cinder pit assumes the risk of injury from the absence of barriers across the track at the pit. 4. Where in an action against a master for negligently causing the death of a servant, the question as to whether the person causing the injury was in the employ of the company employing the decedent or of an independent contractor was left to the jury, it was error to give a charge on the masters liability for an injury growing out of negligence upon his part, concurring with the intervening act of negligence of an employe of the independent contractor, to be applied to the case either if the jury found that the person causing the injury was a fellow-servant of the person injuried or the servant of an independent contractor. 5. Fellow Servant.-A person employed to clean the cinders out of engines in a cinder pit is a fellow servant of an assistant hostler employed to move engines from one part of the yard to another. 103 S. W. Wilcox et al vs. United States. Number of Challenges- Under the direct provisions of the statute, where two defendants were tried together, they were entitled to but three peremptory challenges: the challenge of one being the challenge of all. 2. On a trial of two defendants for disturbing the peace and quite of a family by committing an assault and battery on another, a concert of action may be shown either by evidence of a prior agreement to entice the one assaulted to the place of assault and battery for the purpose of it, or by evidence that defendants acted together at the time of the offense; one aiding and encouraging the other. On a trial of two defendants for disturbing the peace of a family by fighting, evidence as to the defendants being together the day previous to the commission of the offense was admissible as tending to prove the conspiracy. 103 S. W. 774. Bradley Real Estate Company VS. Robbins et al. 1. Statute of Frauds.-A memorandum of a contact for the sale of land failing to state the considera. tion in insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. 2. Specific Performance.- Burden of Proof.Where, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land within the statute of frauds, defendant denied that there was any contract of sale, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish a written and not a parol a greement. Where in a suit 3. Trial-Reception of evidence. for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, the complaint showed on its face that the contract was within the statute of frauds, and defendants denied the existence of any contract, they did not waive their right to require proof of a valid written contract in order to entitle complainant to recover by failing to object. at the trial to evidence of the making of an oral cor tract. 4. Appeal-Question Below. In a suit for specific performance, an exception to a finding that on a specified date defendant R. entered in to a"contract of sale" with plaintiff, by terms of which he agreed to sell plaintiff certain specified land in controversy, was sufficient to raise the question whether the contract was void under statute of frauds. 103 S. W. Thomason vs. Mc Laughlin. Indians-Unlawful Detainer.-A complaint in an action of unlawful detainer, alleging that plaintiffs were Indians entitled to an allotment, and that they desired to take the lands in controversy in allotment, and |