(C) Testimony of Parties or Persons In-
terested, for or against Representa-
tives, Survivors, or Successors in Ti-
tle or Interest of Persons Deceased or
Incompetent.

§ 128 (Del.Ch.) The statutory disqualifica-
tion of a mortgagor to testify to the making of
payments to a deceased mortgagee applies in
equity as well as at law; the rules of evidence
being the same in both courts.-Clark v. Sipple,
84 A. 1.

§ 140 (Pa.) Where a mortgagee is dead at the
time of trial of a scire facias sur mortgage, a
brother of the mortgagor for whose debt the
mortgage was given as collateral security is a
witness with an adverse interest.-Patterson v.
Hughes, 84 A. S29.

§ 144 (Pa.) On a scire facias sur mortgage
where the mortgagee is dead, the mortgagor is
incompetent to testify that she was induced to
sign the mortgage by representations of the
mortgagee's attorney.-Patterson v. Hughes, 84
A. $29.

$ 159 (Del.Super.) The plaintiff administra-
tor was not incompetent, under 16 Del. Laws,
c. 537 (Rev. Code 1852, amended to 1893, p.
798) § 1, to testify whether he was working
at the crusher where the accident occurred at
the time of its occurrence, or whether he saw
the deceased anywhere around the bin.-Di
Nardi v. Standard Lime & Stone Co., 84 A. 124.
The plaintiff administrator was incompetent,
under 16 Del. Laws, c. 537 (Rev. Code 1852,
amended to 1893, p. 798) § 1, to testify what
duties the deceased was employed to perform

at the time of the accident.-Id.

§ 176 (Pa.) Under Act June 11, 1891 (P. L.
287), the mortgagor's brother for whose debt the
mortgage was given as collateral security, was
not rendered a competent witness after the
death of the mortgagee by the calling of a use
plaintiff as witness by the mortgagor.-Patter-
son v. Hughes, 84 A. 829.

III. EXAMINATION.

(A) Taking Testimony in General.

§236 (Del.Super.) A question as to what
plaintiff knew about a coemployé who caused
his injury held too broad, and his answer that
he did not know anything immaterial.-War-
ren v. Harlan & Hollingsworth Corporation, 84
A. 215.

§ 255 (Del.O.&T.) A writing not signed nor
sworn to by decedent, though inadmissible as

§ 267 (Vt.) The course and extent of a cross-
examination, even in matters directly relevant
to the main issue, are largely within the discre-
tion of the trial court.-State v. Meehan, 84 A.
862.

juries caused by disorderly conduct of other
§ 268 (Md.) In a passenger's action for in-
passengers, objection to question, asked plain-
tiff on cross-examination, why he thought it
was the duty of the trainmen to interfere, held
properly sustained.-Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
Rudy. 84 A. 241.

§ 270 (N.H.) In an action against a railroad
company for personal injuries to a woman, a
question to a physician, who had testified that
health and that such affidavit was used on de-
he made affidavit that plaintiff was in good
fendant's application to take plaintiff's deposi-
tion, as to whether he knew that the judge
denied the motion, held improper, as calling for
immaterial evidence.-Holman v. Boston & M.

R. R., 84 A. 979.

§ 280 (Vt.) The cross-examination of an ad-
verse witness is as a general proposition a legal
right, and the rule requiring the examiner to
indicate the purpose of his inquiry is inapplic-
able to cross-examination.-State v. Meehan, 84
A. 862.

§ 281 (N.H.) A question held to assume
something as a fact, though in the form of an
interrogatory.-Holman v. Boston & M. R. R.,
84 A. 979.

$ 287 (Vt.) Certain applications for insur-
ance having been introduced in an action on a
policy to discredit plaintiff's treasurer as a wit-
ness, he was entitled, on redirect examination,
to explain the values given therein.-Citizens'
Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Mutual
Fire Ins. Co., 84 A. 970.

IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT,
CONTRADICTION, AND COR-

ROBORATION.

(A) In General.

§ 330 (Vt.) Where defendant's wife testified
on direct examination that plaintiff's intestate
and her husband had given over all their prop-
erty to defendant for their support, it was
competent to show on her cross-examination
that intestate's husband loaned her $50.-Com-
stock's Adm'r v. Jacobs, 84 A. 568.

(D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.
§ 379 (Del.) While, as regards the question
whether property, levied on by defendant as the
property of plaintiff's father, belonged to plain-
tiff, statement of the father, a few days before,
on the occasion of other levies, that it was his
property, may not be considered, they may be
considered in determining the credit to be given
the father's testimony that it belonged to plain-
tiff.-Davis v. Maloney, 84 A. 947.

379 (Pa.) In an action for personal injuries,
the record of a former suit between the same
parties for other injuries is inadmissible to at-
tack the credibility of plaintiff as a witness.-
Thomas v. Altoona & Logan Valley Electric
Ry. Co., 84 A. 846.

§ 388 (Del.O.& T.) The state may not im-
peach accused, testifying as a witness, by prov-
ing a contradictory statement, unless a foun-
dation was laid therefor.-State v. Brelawski,
84 A. 950.

$395 (Pa.) In an action for injuries where
plaintiff's testimony is impeached, proof that
his testimony was consistent with his declara-

(E) Contradiction and Corroboration of
Witness.

§ 406 (Conn.) In lessee's action for damages,
evidence as to purchase of goods by his wife
held inadmissible to contradict her testimony as
to purchases by him.-Rumberg v. Cutler, 84 A.
107.

$ 406 (N.H.) In an action under Pub. St.
1901, c. 244, § 1, for forfeiture for removing
timber, testimony that surveyor was familiar
with line, and that the bounds between which he
ran the line were well known, held admissible to
contradict defendant's testimony that the sur-
veyor "could not seem to find the line."-Blod-
gett v. Park, 84 A. 42.

WOODS AND FORESTS.

See Taxation, §§ 24, 585.

WORDS AND PHRASES.
"Abandonment.”—Adams v. Hodgkins (Me.) 84
"Action."-Densmore v. Hall (Me.) 84 A. 983;
Herald & Globe Ass'n v. Clere Clothing Co.
(Vt.) 84 A. 23.

A. 530.

"Actual fraud."-Tooker v. National Sugar Re-
fining Co. of New Jersey (N. J. Ch.) 84

A. 10.

"After 12 days."-Fenlason v. Shedd (Me.) 84
A. 409.

"Alterations, improvements and additions."

Lindsay Bros. v. Curtis Pub. Co. (Pa.) 84 A.
783.
"Assault."-State v. De Paolo (Del. Gen. Sess.)
84 A. 213.

"Assault with intent to murder."-State v. De
Paolo (Del. Gen. Sess.) 84 A. 213.
"Attempt at subornation."-State v. Johnson
(Del. Gen. Sess.) 84 A. 1040.
"Business required by law."-Lonsdale Co. v.
Taft (R. I.) 84 A. 795.
"Children."-Chambers v. Union Trust Co. (Pa.)
84 A. 512; Shields v. Aitken, Id. 662.
"Civil action."-Cohen v. Cohen (Del. Super.)
84 A. 122.

"Competent servant."-Warren V. Harlan &
Hollingsworth Corporation (Del. Super.) 84
A. 215.

"Consonant statement."-Lyke v. Lehigh Val-
ley R. Co. (Pa.) 84 A. 595.

"Continuing guaranty."-Grob v. Gross (N. J.
Sup.) 84 A. 1064.
"Contract."-Jones v. Tucker (Del. Super.) 84
A. 1012.

"Contract of insurance."-Buffalo Fertilizer Co.
v. Aroostook Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Me.) 84 A.

1078.

"Contract of sale."-Silver v. Moore (Me.) 84
A. 1072.

"Contractor."-Cantera v. Trustees of Eighth

St. Baptist Church of Wilmington (Del. Su-
per.) 84 A. 1035.

"Costs and expenses."-In re Reber (Pa.) 84
A. 587.

"Court not of record."-Hudson Trust Co. v.
Boyd (N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.
"Court of record."-Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd
(N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.

"Criminal case."-State v. Hall (Conn.) 84 A.
923.

"Deadly weapon."-State v. Brooks (Del. O. &
T.) 84 A. 225.

"Debt by specialty."-Hudson Trust Co.
Boyd (N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.

V.

"Debt of record."-Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd
(N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.
"Decree."-Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd (N. J.
Ch.) 84 A. 715.

"Desertion."-Buckner v. Buckner (Md.) 84 A.

wealth v. Johnson (Pa.) 84 A. 824.
"Directory provision."-Bond v. City of Balti-
more (Md.) 84 A. 258.

"Domicile."-Cohen v. Cohen (Del. Super.) 84
A. 122.

"Due process of law."-Board of Water Com'rs
of City of Norwich v. Johnson (Conn.) 84
A. 727; Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Board
of Public Utility Com'rs (N. J. Sup.) 84 A.
702.
"Election."-Potomac Lodge No. 31, I. O. 0.
F. v. Miller (Md.) 84 A. 554.
"Exception."-Smith's Ex'r v. Jones (Vt.) 84
A. 866.
"Express contract."-Jones v. Tucker (Del.
Super.) 84 A. 1012.
malice aforethought."-State
Brooks (Del. O. & T.) 84 A. 225.
"Food."-Commonwealth v. Pflaum (Pa.) 84 A.

"Express

842.

"For 12 days after demand."-Fenlason v.
Shedd (Me.) 84 A. 409.

"From."-Dailey v. Swift & Co. (Vt.) 84 A.
603.
"Good will."-Brown v. Benzinger (Md.) 84 A.
79.

"Gross income."-Schmidt v. Schmidt (N. J.
Ch.) 84 A. 629.

"Head."-Milo Electric Light & Power Co. v.
Sebec Dam Co. (Me.) 84 A. 941.
"Head of department."-Fagen v. Morris (N.
J. Sup.) 84 A. 1067.

"Heirs."-Friedley v. Security Trust & Safe
Deposit Co. (Del. Ch.) 84 A. 883.
"Immediately."-Herald & Globe Ass'n v. Clere
Clothing Co. (Vt.) 84 A. 23.
"Implied contract."-Jones v. Tucker (Del
Super.) 84 A. 1012.
"Implied malice."-State v. De Paolo (Del.
Gen. Sess.) 84 A. 213.
"Incompetency."--Warren v. Harlan & Hol-
lingsworth Corporation (Del. Super.) 84 A.
215.
re De Haven's Estate
"Indebtedness."-In
(Pa.) 84 A. 676.
"Indemnity."-Poe v. Philadelphia Casualty Co.
(Md.) 84 A. 476.

"Inhabitants of district."-Town of East
Greenwich v. Gimmons (R. I.) 84 A. 1008.
"Injury to the person."-Crane v. Ketcham (N.
J. Sup.) 84 A. 1052.

"Intent."-State v. De Paolo (Del. Gen. Sess.)
84 A. 213.

"Interest in land."-Donovan v. Maloney (Del.
Super.) 84 A. 1032.

"Issue."-Sumner v. Westcott (Conn.) 84 A.
921.

"Judgment."-Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd (N.
J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.

"Judgment debt."-Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd
(N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 715.
"Keeping."-State v. Kelley (Vt.) 84 A. 861.
"Knowledge." "-State V. Dryden (Del. Gen.
Sess.) 84 A. 1037.
"Lawful issue."-Church v. Baer (Pa.) 84 A.
"Legal heirs."-Church v. Baer (Pa.) 84 A.
1099.

1099.

"Liquidated."-Links v. Mariowe (N. J. Sup.)
84 A. 1056.

"Maintain."-State v. Kelley (Vt.) 84 A. 861.
"Malice."-State v. Brooks (Del. O. & T.) 81
A. 225; Same v. De Paolo (Gen. Sess.) Id.
213.

"Mandatory provision."-Bond v. City of Bal-
timore (Md.) 84 A. 258.
"Manslaughter."-State v. Brooks (Del. O. &
T.) 84 A. 225; Same v. Brelawski, Id. 950;
Same v. De Paolo (Gen. Sess.) Id. 213.
"Mills on Sebec river."-Milo Electric Light &
Power Co. v. Sebec Dam Co. (Me.) 84 A. 941.
Aroos-
"Mortgage."-Buffalo Fertilizer Co. v.
took Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Me.) 84 A. 1078.
"Murder."-State v. De Paolo (Del. Gen. Sess.)

Light & Power Co. v. Sebec Dam Co. (Me.)
84 A. 941.

"Neglect to take oath."-Little v. Schul (Md.)
84 A. 649.

"Negligence."-Warren v. Harlan & Hollings-
worth Corporation (Del. Super.) 84 A. 215;
Bowen v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steam-
boat Co., Id. 1022.

"Net income."-Schmidt v. Schmidt (N. J. Ch.)

84 A. 629.

"Next."-State v. Caplan (Conn.) 84 A. 280.
'Nonuser.”—Adams v. Hodgkins (Me.) 84 A.

530.

"Notice."-Little v. Schul (Md.) 84 A. 649.
"Offensive purpose or occupation."-Hibberd v.
Edwards (Pa.) 84 A. 437.
"Office."-Hosp v. Martin (N. J. Sup.) 84 A.
1059.

"Other vehicle."-State v. Dunklee (N. H.) 84
A. 40.

"Party aggrieved."-Stevens v. Connecticut Co.
(Conn.) 84 A. 361.
"Passed upon."-Fitzsimons

V. Richardson,

Twigg & Co. (Vt.) 84 A. 811.
"Pay liability."-Poe v. Philadelphia Casualty
Co. (Md.) 84 A. 476.

V.

"Payment in money."-Herbo-Phosa Co.
Philadelphia Casualty Co. (R. I.) 84 A. 1093.
"Possession."-Merritt & Co. v. Poli (Pa.) 84

A. 683.

"Properly guarded."-McCoy v. Wolf Co. (Pa.)
84 A. 581.
"Property."-Lake Auburn Crystal Ice Co. v.
City of Lewiston (Me.) 84 A. 1004.
"Proper writ."-Densmore v. Hall (Me.) 84 A.
983.

"Proximate cause."-Nehring

V. Connecticut
Co. (Conn.) 84 A. 301.
"Reasonable care."-Bowen V. Baltimore &
Philadelphia Steamboat Co. (Del. Super.) 84

A. 1022.
"Reasonable doubt."-State v. Brooks (Del. O.
T.) 84 A. 225; Same v. Brelawski, Id. 950;
Same v. De Paolo (Gen. Sess.) Id. 213;
Same v Dryden, Id. 1037; Same v. John-
son, Id. 1040.

"Reasonable time."-Emery v. Dana (N. H.)
84 A. 976; Collins v. Phillips (Pa.) 84 A.
854.

"Recoupment."-Hawthorne v. Murray (Del.
Super.) 84 A. 5.

"Rent."-Magoon v. Eastman (Vt.) 84 A. 869.
"Reservation."-Smith's Ex'r v. Jones (Vt.) 84

A. 866.

"Residence."-Cohen v. Cohen (Del. Super.) 84
A. 122; Harrison v. Harrison (Md.) 84 A.
57.
V. Mackenzie

"Rest and residue."-Holmes

(Md.) 84 A. 340.

"Returnable according to law."-Densmore v.
Hall (Me.) 84 A. 983.

"Road."-Boston & M. R. R. v. City of Frank-
lin (N. H.) 84 A. 44.
"Roadbed."-Osgood v. United States Health &
Accident Ins. Co. (N. H.) 84 A. 50.
"Salaries."-In re Reber (Pa.) 84 A. 587.
"Sale."-Silver v. Moore (Me.) 84 A. 1072.
"Set-off."-Links v. Mariowe (N. J. Sup.) 84 A.

1056.

"Sold."-Doylestown Agr. Co. v. Brackett,
Shaw & Lunt Co. (Me.) 84 A. 146; Buffalo
Fertilizer Co. v. Aroostook Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., Id. 1078.

"Subornation of perjury."-State v. Johnson
(Del. Gen. Sess.) 84 A. 1040.

"Subrogation."-Lackawanna Trust & Safe De-
posit Co. v. Gomeringer (Pa.) 84 A. 757.

"Taxes."-Schmidt v. Schmidt (N. J. Ch.) 84
A. 629.
V. Brad-

"Temporary injunction."-Deming
street (Conn.) 84 A. 116.
"Tender."-Silver v. Moore (Me.) 84 A. 1072.
"Thereof."-In re Reber (Pa.) 84 A. 587.
"Time of sale."-Trenton Trust & Safe De-
posit Co. v. Fitzgibbon & Crisp Carriage &
Wagon Co. (N. J. Ch.) 84 A. 1042.
"Title."-Giering & Bentley v. Hartford The-
ological Seminary (Conn.) 84 A. 930.
"Transaction."-Herald & Globe Ass'n v. Clere
Clothing Co. (Vt.) 84 A. 23.

"Unforeseen cause."-McCaffrey v. Groton &
S. St. Ry. Co. (Conn.) 84 A. 284.
"Vacancy."-Claude v. Wayson (Md.) 84 A.
"Writ."-Densmore v. Hall (Me.) 84 A. 983.

562.

WORK AND LABOR.

$4 (Conn.) Right to recover for work and
labor depends on the rendition of services un-
der circumstances making it fairly presumable
that the party receiving the benefit thereof
intended to pay for them.-McCaffrey v. Grot-
on & S. St. Ry. Co., 84 A. 284.

$7 (Del.Super.) Presumption that services
rendered by a person taken into a family were
gratuitous is binding, in the absence of clear
proof of an express or implied promise to pay
therefor.-Jones v. Tucker, 84 A. 1012.

§ 13 (Conn.) A complaint under the common
counts for labor performed may be maintained
to recover for extras and labor done outside a
written contract.-McCaffrey v. Groton & S.
St. Ry. Co., 84 A. 284.

§ 14 (Md.) Where there is a special contract,
a recovery, if any, must be by suit on the con-
tract and not on a quantum meruit, and, where
there has been a breach, the party guilty
thereof cannot abandon the contract, and elect
to stand on the common counts.-Oldewurtel
v. William F. Bevan & Co., 84 A. 66.

Where a building contractor stopped work
before completing the contract, and the con-
tract was not abandoned by mutual consent,
and its performance was not prevented by any
act of the owner who complied with the con-
tract, and who did not waive full performance,
the contractor could not recover in assumpsit
on the common counts.-Id.

$30 (Md.) Requested instruction in a con-
tractor's action on the common counts for work

done and materials furnished held properly re-
fused as misleading.-City of Baltimore v. J.
A. Kinlein & Co., 84 A. 483.

WRITING.

See Frauds, Statute of, §§ 56, 108, 118.

WRIT OF DIMINUTION.

See Appeal and Error, §§ 635, 659, 660.

WRITS.

See Attachment; Certiorari; Execution; Gar-

nishment; Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Man-
damus; Process; Prohibition; Quo Warran-
to; Replevin.

Of error, see Appeal and Error; Criminal Law,
§ 1069; Justices of the Peace, § 144.

X-RAY.

See Evidence, §§ 537, 547.