V. VENUE.

(A) Place of Bringing Prosecution.

107 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Constitution does not entitle one to trial in district of residence (Const. Amend. 5).-Andrade v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 776.

113 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Indictment may be found and trial had for use of mails to defraud in district of delivery of letter (Criminal Code, § 215 [Comp. St. § 10385]).-Andrade v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 776.

Offense is cognizable in district where begun or completed (Judicial Code, § 42 [Comp. St. § 1024]).-Id.

Selection of district for indictment and trial, where offense is cognizable in more than one, is not for court.-Id.

Unnecessarily selecting for trial district other than that of accused's residence is not oppression.-Id.

VII. FORMER JEOPARDY,

163 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) Acquittal on charge of maintaining nuisance is not bar to civil proceeding to abate same nuisance (National Prohibition Act, tit. 2, § 22 [Comp. St. § 101382k]).-Egner v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 597.

177 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Trial on new information after writ of error to review order denying petition to quash search warrant to exclude evidence was dismissed does not place defendant in jeopardy twice.-Armstrong v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 62.

195(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) To support plea of former jeopardy prosecutions must be for same offense.-Bossio v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 57.

196 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Judgment under indictment alleging offense of subsequent date is bar to another prosecution, where subjectmatter of offense was described with particularity.-Goulson v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 44.

198 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Acquittal held no bar to prosecution for other similar offenses occurring within three years before filing of information in first case (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. § 101384 et seq.]).-Bossio v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 57.

of

200 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Acquittal maintaining common liquor nuisance is not acquittal of unlawful possession or sale (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. § 101384 et seq.]). Bossio v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 57.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AFFI

DAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMINATION,
COMMITMENT, AND SUMMARY
TRIAL.

242(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Hardship of being tried away from home allows no exception to statute for removal to district of trial (Rev. St. § 1014 [Comp. St. § 1674]).-Andrade v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 776.

242 (4) (U.S.D.C.Mass.) Indictment held too indefinite as to person charged to warrant removal of person arrested to another district for trial thereon.-Duffy v. Keville, 16 F. (2d) 828.

IX. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEAS, AND NOLLE PROSEQUI OR DISCONTINUANCE.

274 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Accused did not have legal right to have conviction on plea of guilty set aside.-Gleckman v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 670.

279 (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Defendant has right of trial under proper name, but must make due, proper, and timely objection by plea of misnomer.-McNulty v. Snook, 16 F. (2d) 608.

(D) Materiality and Competency in General.

394 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Evidence obtained without warrant, after detecting odor of fermenting mash, held admissible.-Koth v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 59.

That officers may have been trespassers in making search of open field does not exclude evidence.-Id.

394 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Officers making arrest held to have probable cause to believe felony was being committed, and evidence ad30, 1919, § 1 [Comp. St. § 4137aa]: National missible, though search warrant void (Act June Prohibition Act, § 25 [Comp. St. § 101382m]; lingsley v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 754. Penal Code, § 37 [Comp. St. 10201]).—Bil

394 (U.S.D.C.N.J.) Seizure of entire brewery held invalid, and evidence inadmissible, under warrant authorizing seizure of intoxicating liquors only, regardless of averments of affidavit.-U. S. v. City Products Co., 16 F. (2d) 317.

395 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Officers held to have had probable cause to arrest accused for felony, and narcotics taken from his person were admissible (Harrison Narcotic Act [Comp. St. $$ 6287g-6287q]; Jones-Miller Narcotic Act [42 Stat. 596]).-White v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 870.

395 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Documents and property found on person may be used in trial.-U. S. v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F.(2d) 202; U. S. v. Kirsch, 16 F. (2d) 204.

(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra

tive Evidence.

400 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) In prosecution for conspiracy to defraud by sale of oil stock, certified copy of lease assignment to defendant held not best evidence (Criminal Code, §§ 37, 215 [Comp. St. §§ 10201, 10385).-Nelson V. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 71.

(F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hear

say.

419, 420 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Testimony that alleged thief told officer what he did with property held admissible, in prosecution for receiving it; substance of statement not being shown. Shuman v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 457.

Criminal Law

(F) Province of Court and Jury in General.

731 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Jury has though not right, to acquit an accused, howevpower er plain his guilt.-Seiden v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 197.

736(1) (App.D.C.) Credibility and effect of evidence to show probable cause are for jury, though whether facts found constitute probable cause is question of law.-Cooper v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 830.

739(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Defense of entrapment held to present an issue for the jury. -Silk v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 568.

753 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Unless substantial evidence excludes every other hypothesis cused.-Bishop v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 410. but guilt, court should instruct verdict for ac

XII. TRIAL.

(A) Preliminary Proceedings. 620(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Consolidation of indictments for conspiracy and substantial offense held permissible (Comp. St. § 1690).— Hostetter v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 921.

Any error in consolidation of indictments is waived, in absence of objection and exception. -Id.

Trying one at single trial before single jury for more than one infamous crime, and imposing separate punishment, is not unconstitutional (Comp. St. Const. Amend. 5).—Id.

(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General.

633(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Denial of motion for mistrial for proceedings relating to jury bribe held discretionary.-Christensen v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 29.

(C) Reception of Evidence.

663 (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Only such portions of document which are admissible should be offered or received.-Sartain v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 704. 671 (App.D.C.) In prosecution for ceny, admission in presence of jury of evilardence tending to show probable cause for arrest without warrant held not error.-Cooper v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 830.

673 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission of evidence competent against one of several defendants not error, where properly limited by the court.-Barnard v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 451.

673(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Admitting coconspirator's testimony as to his previous false statements without limitation held not error (Penal Code, § 37 [Comp. St. § 10201]).-Camp v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 370.

683(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Reputation defendant as voilator of law may be shown in of rebuttal of defense of entrapment.-Silk v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 568.

(D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions.

ranted.-Crampton v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 231.

763, 764(10) (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Instruction that accused transported woman in interstate commerce for immoral purposes, though he inquestion of intent from jury (Comp. St. § 8813). tended to marry her, held erroneous, as taking -Drossos v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 833.

(K) Verdict.

prose

one

XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST.

923 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Denial of new trial for disqualification of juror held not abuse of discretion, in absence of objection before verdict.-Bush v. U. S.. 16 F. (2d) 709.

941(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Denial of new trial was not improper, where alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and offered over five months after trial.-Camp v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 370.

951(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Denial of new trial was not improper, where alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and offered over five months after trial.-Camp v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 370.

fore appellate court.-Duncan v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 782.

1044 (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Admission of evidence is not reviewable, in absence of motion or objection.-Camp v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 370.

1054(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) Objection to testimony presents nothing for review, unless exception is saved.-Segurola v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 563.

(D) Record and Proceedings Not in Record.

1086(14) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) To be reviewable, objections to instructions must be brought to attention of trial court and preserved in record.-Crumpton v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 231.

970(7) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Objection that indictment is vague or duplicitous cannot be raised by motion in arrest.-Barnard v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 451.

XIV. JUDGMENT, SENTENCE, AND FINAL COMMITMENT.

984 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sentence on one of counts charging nuisance by unlawful manufacture of liquor and keeping liquor for sale held permissible.-Armstrong v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 62.

Sentence on one count after conviction on more than one, not exceeding that which might be imposed thereon, is good, if count is sufficient.-Id.

984 (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) That certain counts were merged is immaterial, where sentence on several counts did not exceed that which might have been imposed on one.-Koth v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 59.

984 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Sentence imposed on count voluntarily dismissed is void.-Biddle v. Shirley, 16 F. (2d) 566.

996(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Clerk's mistake in defendant's name held not to result in void sentence, but only entitles defendant to have record corrected.-McNulty v. Snook, 16 F. (2d) 608.

998 (U.S.C.C.A.Minn.) Complicity in conspiracy held for jury, and denial of motion to set aside sentence on plea of guilty not abuse of discretion.-Gleckman v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 670.

Contention that plea of guilty was result of overreaching by accused's attorney held not sustained, and refusal to set aside conviction not abuse of discretion.-Id.

Statement in reply brief that accused's trial attorney was disbarred for misconduct, alleged on motion to set aside conviction, held not sustained.-Id.

999(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) "Mittimus" after conviction cannot vary or contradict judgment.-Biddle v. Shirley, 16 F. (2d) 566.

XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND CER

TIORARI.

(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and Right of Review.

1023(12) (App.D.C.) Order denying return of liquor seized after quashing of search warrant and discharge of defendant held final (National Prohibition Act [Comp. St. § 101384 et seq.]).-Dickhart v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 345.

(B) Presentation and Reservation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review.

1036(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ky.) Admission of evidence is not reviewable, in absence of motion or objection.-Camp v. Ú. S., 16 F. (2d) 370.

to admission of evidence is not reviewable, in absence of bill of exceptions.-Nancy v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 872.

(E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs.

129(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Error assigned to admission or rejection of evidence not complying with rule will be disregarded, although court may notice unassigned plain error (Circuit Court of Appeals rule 11).-Sartain v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 704.

(G) Review.

1144 (13) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Overruling of motion for directed verdict reviewable only as to sufficiency of evidence to go to jury.-Spiechowicz v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 1001.

1144(17) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Presumption is that sentence was imposed under count charging offense to which it is applicable.-Nancy v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 872.

1167(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Variance is not fatal, unless prejudicial.-Bishop v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 406.

1169 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Admission of narcotics in evidence, if error, was not prejudicial, where accused admitted possession thereof.-White v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 870.

1172(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Appellate court cannot reform misleading instruction.-Bishop v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 406.

1175 (U.S.C.C.A.Kan.) Defendant cannot complain of failure to assess both fine and imprisonment.-Martin v. Biddle, 16 F. (2d) 118.

1177 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Omission to impose fine under count requiring both fine and imprisonment is not available to accused as basis for reversal.-Nancy v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 872.

(H) Determination and Disposition of

Cause.

1186(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Defendant must show that evidence alleged to have been erroneously admitted was prejudicial (Judicial Code, § 269, as amended by Act Feb. 26, 1919 [Comp. St. § 1246]).--Armstrong v. U. S., 16 F.(2d) 62.

1186(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Ga.) Admitting grand jury's resolution recommending parole of prisoner testifying for government in prosecution for conspiracy to receive bribes from prisoners held harmless (Penal Code, § 117 [Comp. St. § 10287]; Judicial Code, § 269, as amended by Act Feb. 26, 1919 [Comp. St. § 1246]).-Sartain v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 704.

1186(4) (U. S. C. C. A. La.) Instruction in prosecution for unlawfully receiving government property held harmless error in view of statute (Judicial Code, § 269, as amended by Act Cong. Feb. 26, 1919 [Comp. St. § 1246]).— Shuman v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 457.

In view of statute plaintiff in error has burden of proving prejudicial error from whole record (Judicial Code, § 269, as amended by Act Cong. Feb. 26, 1919 [Comp. St. § 1246]).

MENT.

(B) Evidence.

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME.

1209 (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Sentence of imprisonment on each of two counts, to run concurrently, based on same act, held not double punishment.-White v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 870.

1216(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Where indict ments have been consolidated for trial, court can impose cumulative sentences.-Hostetter.v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 921.

CURATIVE ACTS.

See Constitutional Law, 193.

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

8 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Carrier held justified in following custom as to unloading.-C. M. McMahen & Sons v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 698.

13 (U.S.C.C.A.Ala.) Custom in harmony with contract becomes part of contract, and governs place, time, and manner of delivery.C. M. McMahen & Sons v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 698.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

I. VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF CUSTOMS LAWS IN GENERAL.

(U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Congress may make dutiable prohibited imports.-Brown v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 682.

in

VII. VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS. 130 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Automobile used transporting beer imported without payment of duty is subject to forfeiture under tariff laws (Tariff Act 1922, Schedule 8, par. 801, and tit. 4, § 594 [Comp. St. §§ 5841a, 5841h14]; Prohibition Act, tits. 2, 3 [Comp. St. § 101382 et seq.]).-Charles Zimmerman Sons Co. v. Ferguson, 16 F. (2d) 604.

Good faith of owner of vehicle, seized because of use in violation of customs law, does not preclude forfeiture.-Id.

Mortgagee's good faith did not preclude forfeiture of automobile used in transporting beer without payment of customs duties (Tariff Act 1922, Schedule S, par. 801, and tit. 4, § 594 [Comp. St. §§ 5841a, 5841h-14]).-Id.

to

133 (U.S.D.C.Mich.) Evidence held show unlawful importation of beer, authorizing seizure and forfeiture of automobile used therein (Tariff Act 1922, tit. 4, § 593b [Comp. St. § 5841h13]).-Charles Zimmerman Sons Co. v. Ferguson, 16 F. (2d) 604.

134 (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) To warrant conviction for unlawful "importation of liquor" it must be shown that it came from a foreign port (Tariff Act 1922, $ 593b [Comp. St. § 5841h13]).-Brown v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 682.

DAMAGES.

VII. INADEQUATE AND EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

132(3) (U.S.D.C.Wash.) $25,000 allowed for fracture of spine resulting in permanent disablement.-Wallace v. U. S., 16 F. (2d) 309. 132 (7) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Twenty-one year old seaman held entitled to $20,000 damages for compound fractures of both legs and other permanent injuries affecting his mental horizon.In re Luckenbach S. S. Co., 16 F. (2d) 168.

182 (U.S.C.C.A.Or.) Evidence of general policy of employer as to giving employment to injured employees held inadmissible, in absence of claim of promise to give employment.-Bowman-Hicks Lumber Co. v. Robinson, 16 F. (2d) 240.

II. ACTIONS FOR CAUSING DEATH. (A) Right of Action and Defenses, II (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In absence of statute, there can be no recovery for tortious personal injury causing death.-U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Greenwald, 16 F.(2d) 948.

(E) Damages, Forfeiture, or Fine.

95(1) (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) $25,000 allowed for death of 32 year old seaman holding master's license.-Petition of Clyde S. S. Co., 16 F. (2d) DEEDS.

930.

See Mortgages.

DEPOSITARIES.

13 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Surety on bond of depositary of county funds held not liable under Nebraska statute for more than maximum authorized deposit (Comp. St. Neb. 1922, §§ 6193, 6195).-National Surety Co. v. Lyons, 16 F. (2d) 688.

13 (U.S.C.C.A.N.M.) Surety on depositary bond held liable for loss of county's funds, in view of its agent's acquiescence in manner of handling of checks intended to effect transfer of county's account.-National Surety Co. v. State of New Mexico, for Use and Benefit of Sandoval County, 16 F. (2d) 873.

14 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Surety in action on bond of depositary of county moneys held not liable for attorney's fees as costs (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 1375, 1378; Comp. St. Neb. 1922, § 7811). National Surety Co. v. Lyons, 16 F. (2d) 688.

DEPOSITIONS.

98 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Deposition of deceased witness, containing alleged admissions against interest, given on former trial, held admissible. -Stephens v. Howells Sales Co., 16 F.(2d) 805.

DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION. See Executors and Administrators; Wills.

DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT. See Appeal and Error, 790-799; Equity, 363.

I. VOLUNTARY.

26 (App.D.C.) Permitting plaintiff to take nonsuit as to defendant truck driver, not as to his employer, held discretionary.-Chr. Heurich Brewing Co. v. McGavin, 16 F.(2d) 334.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

16 (App.D.C.) Under Constitution, federal courts will sustain special assessments on basis of frontage, if not in excess of benefits.-Johnson v. Rudolph, 16 F. (2d) 525.

Approximate accord between special assessment and benefits, as well as discrimination and inequality, may be inquired into.-Id.

I. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE,

18 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Powers of Arkansas drainage district are statutory.-Kochtitzky v. Mercantile Trust Co., 16 F. (2d) 227.

Drainage district had no power, while bonds issued were in default, to devote any part of collected payments to payment of contractor (Crawford & Moses' Dig. Ark. §§ 3617, 3620, 3623, 3633, 3634, 3643).—Id.

49 (U.S.C.C.A.Ark.) Drainage district held not liable to contractor for delay caused in removing obstructing bridge.-National Contracting Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 17 of Mississippi County, Ark., 16 F.(2d) 429.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

See Constitutional Law, 253–298.

EASEMENTS.

I. CREATION, EXISTENCE, AND TERMINATION.

5 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Easement may be acquired by prescription.-F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

Elements of prescriptive user are open, visible, and continuous use under claim of right, adverse to and with knowledge of owner; "prescription."-Id.

that

8 (2,3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Knowledge permissive use has become adverse must be brought home to owner,--F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395. 36(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Adverse user is presumed after expiration of prescriptive period.-F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

Since knowledge that permissive use has become adverse must be brought home to owner, burden of proving change is on one asserting it.-Id.

EJECTMENT.

I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES.

9(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Plaintiff in ejectment must prevail on strength of its own title. -F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

(U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Doctrine is generally recognized.-Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gregory, 16 F. (2d) 589.

268 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Ejectment to recover possession of land, occupied by spur track, is action at law.-F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

Use of spur tracks, serving large number of industries, is "public use."-Id.

Ejectment to recover strip occupied by spur tracks must fail, if tracks were devoted to public use when suit was brought.-Id.

295 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Burden of establishing defense of public use of spur tracks is on defendant in ejectment.-F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

300 (U.S.C.C.A.Colo.) Evidence held to show that spur tracks, crossing plaintiff's property and serving others, were devoted to public use for over 30 years.-F. C. Ayres Mercantile Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 395.

(A) Nature, Grounds, Subjects, and Extent of Jurisdiction in General.

I (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Equitable jurisdiction does not of itself authorize equitable relief.Le Roy v. De Vry Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 18. 24 (U.S.C.C.A.Utah) Equity cannot relieve against forfeiture imposed by statute.-U. S. v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 16 F. (2d) 374.

28 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Court of equity has no jurisdiction over crimes and misdemeanors. -Milliken v. Stone, 16 F. (2d) 981.

(B) Remedy at Law and Multiplicity of Suits.

46 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Remedy must be plain and adequate, to oust chancery court of jurisdiction.-Bernstein v. Biscayne View Corporation, 16 F. (2d) 1010.

46 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) It will be assumed that law courts, if capable, will deal with controversy, to afford complete remedy for fraud. -Continental Casualty Co. v. Yerxa, 16 F. (2d)

473.

46 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Remedy at law, to defeat equity jurisdiction, must be complete, practical, and efficient.-Wrigley Pharmaceutical Co. v. Cameron, 16 F.(2d) 290.

III. PARTIES AND PROCESS.

114 (U.S.C.C.A.Tex.) Existing suit within court's jurisdiction is prerequisite to intervention. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 16 F. (2d) 744.

V. EVIDENCE.

346 (U.S.C.C.A.S.D.) Complainant, suing in equity after running of limitations, has bur