contracts allowed by the law of the state which created them if these stipulations violate our laws or our public policy. Such laws of such foreign states can have, ex proprio vigore, no extraterritorial effect, and it is not competent for a foreign corporation, whose business has been localized in this state, or the borrower, or both, to abrogate, by attempted contract, stipulations whose purpose it is to evade our laws against usury, the laws of this state on that subject.

This holding in no way interferes with the right of a foreign corporation whose business has not been localized here to make contracts with borrowers, to be governed by the laws of the state of their domicile, if there be no purpose therein to evade the usury laws of this state. Such liberty of contracting, exercised in good faith, is not herein interfered with. The authorities cited to that point by counsel for appellee are not pertinent to cases like the one before us. All the cases are admirably collected in a note to Bank of Newport v. Cook, 46 Am. St. Rep. 171. In that note the learned editor points out, on page 202, the distinction to be observed, saying: "The proper answer to this argument is, that mere shams and evasions are not permitted to counteract and annul the law, and 975 where it appears that the purpose of the parties in making the obligation payable in another state was to evade the law against usury of the state in which it was executed, it will be regarded as infected with usury: Pratt v. Adams, 7 Paige, 615; Junction R. R. Co. v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. 226; Andrews v. Ponds, 13 Pet. 65."

Our decision is rested upon the two distinct grounds: 1. That where a foreign money-lending corporation has localized its business within this state, through local boards, doing here regularly and continuously for years the business of the corporation, it has thus voluntarily domesticated itself within this state and subjected its business and contracts to the operation of our laws; and 2. That where, in such case, all the facts, fairly weighed, show that the only purpose of a mere stipulation in the notes or mortgages for payment in the foreign state must have been to evade our laws on the subject of usury, no device or disguise or contrivance will prevent the court from stripping off the mask and pronouncing the judgment of the law on the real case made by the actual facts.

The proposition that the local secretary and treasurer is the agent, not of the lending corporation, whose secretary and

treasurer he was, but of the borrowing debtor, is utterly unfounded: Murphy v. Independent Order of Sons and Daughters of Jacob of America, 77 Miss. 830, 27 South. 624.

The facts of the case make Natchez etc. Assn. v. Shields, 71 Miss. 630, 15 South. 793, and Building etc. Assn. of Jackson v. Leonard, 74 Miss. 810, 21 South. 53, wholly inapplicable.

It is noteworthy that no dividends or profits are allowed by the by-laws of this association where the stock is surrendered before maturity. The appellant, so far from deriving any profits, actually lost nineteen dollars and fifty cents.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Usury.-A loan by a foreign corporation to a citizen of another state, secured by mortgage on land in that state at usurious interest there, is governed in the settlement of interest on foreclosure by the law of the latter state, although the contract of loan and mortgage stipulates that it is solvable by the laws of the state of the domicile of the corporation, and is made with reference to its laws: Meroney v. Atlanta etc. Loan Assn., 116 N. C. 882, 47 Am. St. Rep. 841, 21 S. E. 924. Compare Hale v. Cairns, 8 N. Dak. 145, 73 Am. St. Rep. 746, 77 N. W. 1010; and see the monographic note to Bank of Newport v. Cook, 46 Am. St. Rep. 200-202.

CASES

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

MISSOURI.

STATE v. EVANS.

[161 Mo. 95, 61 S. W. 590.]

JURY-CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE-FORM OF.-To merely challenge a juror "for cause" is insufficient; the cause of the challenge must be distinctly specified.

OFFICER-WATCHMAN.-THE TERM "POLICEMAN" is

the legal equivalent of "watchman."

OFFICER-POWER TO ARREST.-A POLICEMAN has the same power of making arrests as a sheriff or constable, and in so doing is entitled to the same protection.

ARREST FOR FELONY WITHOUT WARRANT.-IF A PEACE OFFICER arrests without warrant, he will be justified in so doing although no felony is actually committed, if he has reasonable cause, either on his own knowledge of facts or on facts communicated to him by others, to suspect the one apprehended.

MURDER IN RESISTING ARREST.-IF A SUSPECTED FELON, IN RESISTING ARREST, or in endeavoring to escape after arrest, kills the arresting officer, he commits murder.

HOMICIDE.-AN OFFICER WHO NECESSARILY KILLS A SUSPECTED FELON when he resists arrest, or endeavors to escape, commits justifiable homicide.

MURDER IN RESISTING ARREST-KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICIAL CHARACTER.-One who is arrested by an officer in uniform, who is known to him, cannot justify the killing of such officer on the ground that he had no notice of the officer's official character.

ARREST-FRESH

PURSUIT-KILLING

OFFICER-NOTICE FOR WHAT ARRESTED.-One who is apprehended on fresh pursuit cannot justify his killing of the arresting officer on the ground that he was not notified for what he was arrested, since in such a case he is presumed to know the cause of his arrest. ARREST.-A PRIVATE PERSON MAKING AN ARREST FOR A PAST FELONY need not give notice of the ground for the arrest, if the accused have notice aliunde.

ARREST

FOR FELONY-RESISTING-KILLING OFFICER.-Where an officer, who has knowledge of a felony committed and of the one who committed it, is killed by such felon while making the arrest, the offense is murder.

ARREST RESISTING-REASONABLE SUSPICION OF FELONY-KILLING OFFICER.-Where an officer arrests one for felony without a warrant upon reasonable suspicion, killing such officer, while resisting arrest or in attempting to escape, is murder in the first degree, even though no felony has been committed.

C. D. Corum and W. G. Pendleton, for the appellant.

Edward C. Crow, attorney general, and Sam B. Jeffries, assistant attorney general, for the state.

100 SHERWOOD, P. J. For the murder of William L. Hennicke, a policeman of Boonville, by shooting him with a pistol, defendant, a negro, was put upon his trial, which resulted 101 in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree; judgment and sentence accordingly.

The homicide happened on this wise: A number of business houses in Boonville had been burglarized during the month of March of last year, which closed the nineteenth century, nor did the burglars neglect the cigar store of Louis Bernard; it had been burglarized three or four times in succession, the last time the night before, and the cash drawer each time depleted of its funds. On the night of the 26th of the month mentioned, John Bernard, the brother of Louis, remained at the cigar store of the latter, and with Henry Winklemeyer kept watch for the burglarious thief. He came about 10 o'clock and stopped at the front door two or three times for a moment, but seemed frightened away by passers-by, but finally, after the lapse of a few minutes, went up the steps, unlocked the door with a false key, walked away, came back, opened the door, walked in, leaving the door open about two inches, stood at the door holding the latch, when he seemed to take alarm from persons passing by, and was about to go out again, when Winklemeyer halloed to him to throw up his hands, whereupon defendant ran out through the door, closing it behind him. Winklemeyer and Bernard followed in close pursuit, and seeing defendant in front of Dan's drugstore, Winklemeyer shot at him. once, when he disappeared. Thereupon, Bernard returned to the cigar store, closed it, and started home, when Officers Hennicke and Jones called to him across the street, asking him if he could recognize the burglar, when he replied he could; that it was "Jocko," and on being asked which one, answered "the

one that used to be on the bus a good deal." Bernard knew the negro well, and had known him for three or four years; and the light was such in the cigar store from neighboring establishments as to render recognition by Bernard of defendant, when in the cigar store, easy.

102 Winklemeyer who was twelve feet from defendant when in the cigar store, though he had never known him before, had no difficulty in subsequently identifying him as the same man he had seen enter the cigar store. When Bernard was accosted by the police officers as aforesaid it was about 10:15 to 10:20 P. M. Hennicke then said to Bernard: "Well, I have some other stores to watch to-night, but we ought to catch him, and so I will go down to-night; I know where he stays." He says, "We will go down." So Officer Jones and Hennicke and Knack and myself, went down.

Yes, sir. . .

“Q. Adolph Knack? A "Q. Where did you go? A. We went down to the house this side of the track, the old 'Sandrock' house, they call it. "Q. You speak of the Missouri Pacific track? A. Yes,

sir. "Q. Where is that house situate with reference to the Missouri Pacific track-with reference to the depot? A. It is south of the track.

"Q. Just across the street is it? A. Yes, sir, just across the street.

"Q. Now what occurred there? A. Why, we went down there and the officers knocked on the door. The woman didn't want to let them in at first. She said she was in bed. So they told her they were looking for some one, to get up. She finally got up and opened the door and the officers went in.

"Q. Where were you at that time? A. I was standing out in front of the house, or steps. And as they were coming out, why, Evans came around between that hallway-there is a hallway between the two houses-him and some more young fellows and some women. And he stepped upon the step, and the officers came out; they put their hand on him, 103 and I says, "That is the man.' And he said to the officers, I didn't do anything.' Hennicke says, 'You will find out about it in the morning.'

"Q. Well, they arrested him there did they? A. Yes, sir, he went, too, along with them. They walked down as far