the United States appropriated, or that the United States had secured title to it. Research discloses no other case presenting this exact question. The right

Contracts agreement to sell entire product for a certain period — effect of outbreak of war between countries of respective parties. A contract to sell one's entire product for a certain period to persons who upon the outbreak of war have become alien enemies is held in Zinc Corp. v. Hirsch [1916] 1 K. B. 541, to be dissolved; the effect of the prohibition against selling to any other person being to prevent the seller from using his resources for the benefit of his country, making the further performance of the contract after the outbreak of war illegal as being detrimental to the interests of the country and of assistance to the public enemy.

Criminal law trial right of prisoner to have evidence translated. The law relating to the rights of foreigners ignorant of English, on trial for a criminal offense, is stated in Rex v. Lee Kun [1916] 1 K. B. 337, to be that when such an one is undefended, the evidence given at the trial must be translated to him; but that if he states that he understands part of the evidence and does not wish that part translated, it need not be translated, unless the judge in his discretion thinks otherwise, because the object of the translation is already achieved; that if the prisoner does not understand the English language he cannot waive compliance with the rule that the evidence must be translated or dispense with it by express or implied consent, and it matters not that no application is made by him for the assistance of an interpreter; but that it is for the court to see that the necessary means are adopted to convey the evidence to his intelligence, notwithstanding that, either through ignorance or timidity or disregard of his own interests, he makes no application to the

court. "The reason is that the trial of a person for a criminal offense is not a contest of private interests in which the rights of parties can be waived at pleasure. The prosecution of criminals and the administration of the criminal law are matters which concern the state. Every citizen has an interest in seeing that persons are not convicted of crimes and do not forfeit life or liberty except when tried under the safeguards so carefully provided by the law."

Where, on the other hand, the prisoner is defended by counsel, the evidence should be interpreted to him except when he, or counsel in his behalf, expresses a wish to dispense with the translation and the judge thinks fit to permit the omission. The judge should not permit it unless he is of opinion that because of what has passed before the trial the accused substantially understands the evidence to be given and the case to be made against him at the trial. Where accused is represented at the trial by counsel and no application is made for the translation of the evidence, the omission to translate it is not an irregularity which vitiates the proceedings.

Injunction mandatory injunction to enforce agreement as to voting of corporate stock. A mandatory injunction will be granted to enforce an agreement by the mortgagee of shares in a corporation to vote in accordance with the wishes of the mortgagor, the case being one in which there is one definite thing to be done about the doing of which there can be no possible doubt. Puddephatt v. Leith [1916] 1 Ch. 200.

Insurance — goods consigned abroad on sale or return" outbreak of war with country of consignee rights of

assured. One who has consigned jewelry on a memorandum, according to the well-known custom of the jewelry trade, to merchants in Germany, who upon the breaking out of war are prevented by law from either purchasing the jewelry or returning it, is entitled to claim a total loss under a policy covering "loss of or damage or misfortune to the property arising from any cause whatsoever." Moore v. Evans [1916] 1 K. B. 479.

Libel and slander slander per se - imputation of immorality to schoolmaster. The English Court of Appeal holds, in Jones v. Jones [1916] 1 K. B. 351, that words imputing adultery, profligacy, immoral conduct, or the like, whether referring to behavior on a particular occasion or to conduct in general, even when spoken of a man holding an office or carrying on a profession or business, are not actionable without special damage unless they relate to his conduct in the office, profession or business or the imputation is connected with his professional duties; notwithstanding his profession or occupation is one in which (as in the present instance of a school-master) a good moral character is specially requisite. The court remarked, however, that if they were at liberty to deal with the case upon principle there would be much to be said in favor of the view that the words complained of were actionable per se, as they must necessarily damage and injure the plaintiff in his vocation; but that the law of slander is an artificial law resting on very artificial distinctions and refinements, and that all the court could do was to apply the law as it existed, leaving any extension to be made by the legislature.

on the outbreak of war between England and Germany entered ports of refuge where they remained without completing their voyage, the buyers are not bound to accept a tender of the shipping documents, inasmuch as at the date of the tender the documents had, by considerations of public policy, become void and unenforceable as regards any obligations of performance after the outbreak of war, and to carry out their original obligations would involve entering into contractual relations with the public enemy. Arnhold Karberg & Co. v. Blythe, G. J. & Co. [1916] 1 K. B. 495.

Tort interference with another's That business lawfulness of means. the use by a bishop of a Mennonite church of his sacerdotal authority to prevent members from having dealings with a certain merchant is not such an illegal means as to give the merchant a right of action, is held in Heinrichs v. Wiens, 8 Sask. L. R. 153. This decision may well be regarded as a border one, since, even assuming that interference by persuasion is not actionable, it would seem that the plaintiff should have been permitted to take the opinion of a jury on the question whether, in view of the position of authority occupied by the defendant, the means employed by him did

not savor of coercion.

War alien enemy status of denationalized German. A German subject who has obtained his discharge from German nationality but has not become a naturalized British subject is, under the provisions of the German law, in a privileged position and does not become entirely devested of the rights belonging to a natural-born German; and may therefore be considered an alien enemy. Rex v. Vine Street Police Station [1916] 1 K. B. 268.

Immovable. In the early days of Dothan, Alabama, an old country gentleman whose honest intentions were greater than his knowledge of law and court procedure was appointed justice of the peace by the governor. Shortly after his commission was received, the newly created squire held court, in which a minor suit was called for trial.

Dr. Snead, the village lawyer, doctor, druggist, and so forth, was attorney for the "suer." Byrd Farmer, one of the biggest lawyers in that state today, was attorney for the "suee." The "suee" was put on the stand and Dr. Snead began questioning him.

Every question was promptly objected to without reason by Colonel Farmer, and his objections were as promptly sustained by Squire Keyton. Finally Dr. Snead became exasperated. He jumped to his feet, shook his finger in the face of the court, and shouted:

"Your Honor, I'll have you understand I have some rights in this court! If you sustain another objection by that young whippersnapper (meaning Colonel Farmer) I'll take out a writ of mandamus against you!"

"Waal, doctah," drawled the "cote," "you kin take out a writ o' god damus fer all o' me, but 'objection sustained' is the rulin' o' this cote!"

What is Art? A jury in Judge Trippet's court wrestled with the moot question of what is art, in an action against a Mexican news-stand man, doing business in the Mexican quarter.

It appears that Robledo purchased a

number of pamphlets in Seville, Spain, giving the physical characteristics of women of the different races, and the text was accompanied with photographs that in the opinion of the government should be barred from the mails.

The book was printed in Spanish, and without any objectionable text, but, it was alleged, the pictures were immoral. On the other hand, it was asserted that they were no worse than could be seen in any art collection. The jury found the accused guilty on one count of the indictment, but recommended the extreme leniency of the court.-Los Angeles Times.

A Partial Defense. A recent issue of a Sunbury (Pa.) newspaper contained the following advertisement: "My wife Helen having left my bed and board without just cause, I hereby give notice that I will not pay any bills contracted by her." In the next issue of the paper and in the same position as the husband's advertisement appeared the wife's rejoinder: "I, Helen Bowman, did not leave the bed of my husband, Charles F. Bowman. We had only one bed and that belonged to me."

Sought Pardon. Executive clemency was put to a new test recently. President Wilson received an appeal from a man in Georgia asking for immediate termination of his matrimonial sentence. He inclosed a money order for 60 cents "to pay the necessary expenses of granting a divorce decree."

A War Problem. A leading light of the Parisian bar was deprived of Gaston, his butler, by the mobilization. Gaston has returned, decorated with the Legion of Honor and exempted from further military service because of an incapacitating wound that does not, however, interfere with the exercise of his calling. His place had been kept for him, but his return plunged the barrister into a perplexing embar

rassment.

While Gaston wears the red ribbon there were among the habitual guests of the house a number of eminent members of the bar whose buttonholes are entitled to nothing but flowers. The proprieties and all rules of precedence were contrary to the idea of a "Legion of Honor" man serving one not decorated.

The judge refused to part with his servant, and solved the problem by deciding that none but Legion of Honor men shall eat at his table.

Ancient Marriage Service. Sidney Smith once satirized, or rather analyzed, the marriage service of the Anglican church as follows: "With this ring I thee wed"-that's sorcery. "With my body I thee worship"that's idolatry; "and with all my worldly goods I thee endow"-that's a lie.

Justice Reilley, of Tombstone, had a brief but efficacious formula: "You, Jim Burnett, take this girl for your wife?" "Sure I do, jedge." "You, Nelly Brown, take Jim for your husband?" "Well I should smile, jedge." "All right, you are man and wife. You'll have to cough up five dollars, Jim, for your certificate."

An archaism of the English marriage service which has fallen into disuse is -"Who giveth this woman away?" It is a relic of the days when a woman could be donated by her father or her brothers as property. It is related that at a wedding in California many years ago, when the Episcopal clergyman said, "Who giveth this woman away?" a sepulchral voice from the body of the audience replied. "I could, but I won't." -Los Angeles Times.

An Unreliable Husband. An old negro woman who was a witness in a divorce case testified that the reputation for truth and morals of one Aleck, the plaintiff, was bad in the community in which he lived.

On cross-examination she was asked: "Whom have you heard say that Aleck's reputation for truth and morals is bad."

"No one, ah knows it myself." "How do you know it?"

"Why, any man what go away an stay for a yeah wid out letten his wife know when he cummin home is jes natchully no good no how."

Aleck had gone away and stayed away for a year, and on his return without letting his wife know of his coming, he found another man on the premises. Hence the divorce suit.

John W. Kern was a young lawyer at Kokomo, Indiana, he represented one side of a case in which the whole controversy hinged on the identity and ownership of a certain calf.

The chief witness on the side against Kern was a colored man. He contended that the calf belonged to his friend, Mr. Jones. When Kern examined him the conversation ran something like this:

"How do you know this was Mr. Jones's calf?"

"Well, sah, I had seen it around his place so much that I jes' natu'lly got acquainted with it. I seen it there with the cow-its maw-and I noticed it p'ticu❜ly because it had funny marks on it. When you see a calf ev'ry day you simply become familyah with it." "What kind of a looking calf was it?"

"It was a red calf, sah, with white ears and a white nose."

"And it belonged to Mr. Jones?"
"Yessah."

"Now, suppose that all the testimony here should show that the calf in this case was a white calf with red ears and a red nose. What would you say about that?"