X. EVIDENCE.

Notice, Presumptions, Burden of Proof.

and

CRIMINAL LAW.

II. CAPACITY TO COMMIT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIME.

cially notice that whisky, alcohol, and other well-known intoxicants are intoxicating, without proof of alcoholic contents.-U. S. v. Picalas, 27 F.(2d) 366.

(C) Other Offenses, and Character of Accused.

IV. JURISDICTION.

VIII. PRELIMINARY COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT, WARRANT, EXAMINATION. COMMITMENT, AND SUMMARY TRIAL.

242 (4) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) To show probable cause, indictment must intelligibly state substantial charge against respondent, whose removal is sought.-Jeffries v. Lillard, 27 F. (2d) 230.

Indictment for using mails to defraud charged no offense against defendant, sought to be removed to another district, as respects letters mailed after his connection with partnership ceased (Cr. Code, § 215 [18 USCA § 338]). -Id.

Indictment for using mails to defraud held to indicate probable cause for removal of defendant, no longer connected with scheme (Cr. Code, § 215 [18 USCA § 338]).—Id.

To order removal to another district, court need only find indictment not clearly bad.-Id.

242 (7) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) One sought to be removed to answer indictment for using mails to defraud held entitled to opportunity to show noncomplicity in scheme before cessation of his connection with subject-matter (Cr. Code, § 215 [18 USCA § 338]).-Jeffries v. Lillard, 27 F. (2d) 230.

Defendant should be removed to another district, if want of probable cause is put in substantial doubt by proofs in addition to indictment.-Id.

(D) Materiality and Competency in Gen.

eral.

393(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Admitting result of search of automobiles for liquor without warrant, where facts justified search without warrant, did not violate constitutional provisions (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]; Const. Amends. 4, 5).-Ramsey v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 502.

394 (U.S.C.C.A.Mont.) Evidence held not to show defendant voluntarily consented to search of dwelling without warrant, thus waiving constitutional rights.-Herter v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 521, reversing judgment (D. C.) U. S. v. Herter, 24 F. (2d) 111.

394 (U.S.C.C.A.Tenn.) Admitting result of search of automobiles for liquor without warrant, where facts justified search without war(National Prohibition Act [27 USCAI; Const. rant, did not violate constitutional provisions Amends. 4, 5).-Ramsey v. U. S., 27 F.(2d)

502.

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.

€ 700 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Prosecuting officers, committing magistrates, grand juries, and courts have duty of protecting persons from unfounded accusation.-U. S. ex rel. Hassell v. Mathues, 27 F.(2d) 137.

703 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Opening statement as to fast driving just before collision at point of possession and transportation of liquor not prejudicial.-McMillan v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 94.

713 (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Permitting government counsel to comment to jury on absence of testimony supporting opening statement of defendant's attorney held not error.-Kearns v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 854.

730(12) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Argument in prosecution for transporting stolen automobile in interstate commerce, that defendant was automobile thief held not prejudicial error, in view of court's statement (National Motor Vehicle Theft Act [18 USCA § 408]).-Pace v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 519.

(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency of Instructions.

776(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) In prosecution for sale of narcotics, special instructions affecting good character held properly refused (Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 1 [26 USCA § 692]). -Mancusco v. U. S.. 27 F. (2d) 322.

re

776(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Instruction lating to testimony as to defendant's reputation held sufficient.-Baugh v. U. S.. 27 F. (2d) 257. not 778(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Court was required to instruct jury not to be influenced by number of counts, where there were only two counts.-Baugh v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 257.

780(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Accomplice's testimony should be closely scrutinized, and jury instructed as to danger of convicting on it alone. -Kearns v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 854.

780 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Instruction as to accomplice testimony held proper (National Motor Vehicle Theft Act [18 USCA § 408]).--Heglin v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 310.

to

780(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Instruction convict only if accomplice's testimony convinced jury of defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt held properly refused.-Kearns v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 854.

789 (9) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Instruction that there was reasonable doubt, unless jury had abiding conviction of guilt to moral certainty, held not misleading.-Kearns v. U. S., 27 F. (2d)

854.

792(3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Court, instructing defendants must have directly participated or knowingly aided in unlawful enterprise, to be criminally responsible, was not bound to instruct that mere presence at still was insufficient to warrant conviction.-Sawyear v. U. S., 27 F (2d) 569.

811(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Idaho) Instruction that testimony as to defendant's reputation may alone create reasonable doubt would give undue prominence to only one circumstance.Baugh v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 257.

814 (17) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Evidence held to warrant refusal of instruction that conviction could not be had, unless all facts inconsistent with innocence.-McMillan v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 94.

(H) Requests for Instructions. 829(9) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) In prosecution for sale of narcotics, special instructions affecting presumption of innocence held properly refused (Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 1 [26 US

829(15) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) In prosecution for sale of narcotics, special instructions affecting circumstantial evidence held properly refused (Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 1 [26 USCA § 692]).-Mancusco v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 322.

829(18) (U.S.C.C.A.Ohio) In prosecution for sale of narcotics, special instructions affecting reasonable doubt held properly refused (Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, § 1 [26 USCA § 692]).-Mancusco v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 322.

(I) Objections to Instructions or Refusal Thereof, and Exceptions.

845 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Objection to instruction, "We except on behalf of the defendant," held insufficient to raise question of failure to instruct on accomplice testimony (National Motor Vehicle Theft Act [18 USCA § 408]).— Heglin v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 310.

(J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury.

867 (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Denial of motions to discharge jury because of newspaper articles published during trial for using mails to defraud by selling medical preparation held not abuse of discretion.-Stunz v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 575.

Motions to discharge jury because of news

paper articles published during trial are within

trial court's sound discretion.-Id.

(K) Verdict.

878(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Verdict of guilty of possession, in trial for possessing intoxicating liquor and property to be used in violating Prohibition Act, held void for uncertainty (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).—Soper v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 648.

Verdict of guilty of nuisance held not void for uncertainty as to which of two similar nuisance charges was meant (National Prohibition Act [27 USCA]).-Id.

878(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Cal.) Verdict of guilty on certain charges is not void. as inconsistent with imputed acquittal on counts as to which verdict is silent.—Soper v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 648.

(L) Waiver and Correction of Irregularities and Errors.

1037 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Argument that defendant was "vulturous proprietor" of liquor nuisance and perjurer held not to require reversal, where court was not requested to admonish jury on ground of prejudiced language.-Vendetti v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 856.

1038 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.)

Appellants, not excepting to instruction given nor making further request or suggestion, cannot complain of failure to define reasonable doubt.-Sawyear v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 569.

for violating National Motor Vehicle Theft Act, admission of evidence of other offenses held not reversible error (18 USCA § 408; 28 USCA § 391).-Heglin v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 310. 11701⁄2(5) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Sustaining objections to cross-examination of witness as to former criminal occupation and court's rebuke held not prejudicial error.-Sawyear v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 569.

1172(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) In prosecution against bankrupts' attorney for subornation, instruction that subornation required no corroboration held not to require reversal.-Cohen v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 713.

(H) Determination and Disposition Cause.

of

1048 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Court on appeal in criminal case should not review rulings in absence of exceptions unless failure of justice appears.-Pace v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 519.

for using mails to defraud by selling medical preparation, errors in instructions and rulings on evidence held harmless (Jud. Code, § 269 [28 USCA § 391]).—Stunz v. Ù. S., 27 F.(2d) 575.

XVII. PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME.

(U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Exclusion of question on cross-examination not assignable as error without objection, exception, or further cross-examination.-McMillan v. U. S., 27 F.

(2d) 94.

~1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Appellants, not excepting to instruction given nor making further request or suggestion, cannot complain of failure to define reasonable doubt.-Sawyear v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 569.

1056(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) Instructions not excepted to, cannot be considered by appellate court.-Kearns v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 854.

1059(2) (U.S.C.C.A.Wash.) General exception to instruction containing many legal propositions presents nothing for review, unless entire instruction is erroneous.-Kearns v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 854.

(E) Assignment of Errors and Briefs.

1129(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) Single assignment of error directed against court's action, which was partly right, is insufficient.-Beatty v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 323.

Appellate court will not take notice of error without proper exception or assignment, where record did not indicate unjust result (Circuit Court of Appeals rule 11).—Id.

1129(6) (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Assignment that court erred in admitting incompetent evidence of other offenses held insufficient to raise any question as to alleged incompetent evidence. Heglin v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 310.

(G) Review.

1137(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Defendant's attorney, having refused mistrial, polling jury, or instruction, because of article respecting defendant, published after both sides rested, held required to abide thereby after verdict.-Cohen v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 713.

1159(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Contradictions in testimony of government's witnesses in subornation of perjury case held questions for jury, not for appellate court.-Cohen v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 713.

1218 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Sentence for transportation of liquor could not provide for imprisonment in penitentiary for nonpayment of fine.-McMillan v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 94.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

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

10 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Right within 12-mile limit to seize vessels for violation of revenue laws held not limited by Treaty with Great Britain (43 Stat. 1761).-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

VII. VIOLATIONS OF CUSTOMS LAWS.

121 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Government may proceed under revenue laws, though acts complained of also constitute violations of National Prohibition Act (27 USCA).-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

126 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Right to seize liquorladen vessel without manifest within 12-mile limit held not lost, because she succeeded in getting further from shore in attempting to escape.-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164. limit with unmanifested liquor cargo, held subLiquor-laden vessel, coming within 12-mile ject to seizure, though never within 3-mile limit (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 431, 581, 583, 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 241, 481, 485, 486, 498]).—Id.

and seize vessels within 12-mile limit for violaStatutes authorizing Coast Guard to search 581, 583, 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 241, 481, 485, tion of laws held valid (Tariff Act 1922. §§ 431, 486, 4981).-Id.

129 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Master's failure to produce manifest within four leagues of coast subjects him to penalty (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 431, 435, 581 [19 USCA §§ 241, 245, 481 note]). -The Mistinguette, 27 F. (2d) 738.

Master of liquor-laden vessel without manifest held liable to penalty equal to value of cargo, in addition to $500 penalty (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 581, 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 481 note, 486, 498]).-Id.

Penalty for failure to produce manifest need not be first imposed on master before proceeding against vessel (Tariff Act 1922. §§ 581, 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 481 note, 486, 498]).-Id.

Goods delivered to master without bill of lading held consigned to master, within law im

MENT.

129 (U.S.C.C.A.N.Y.) Vessel carrying liquor held "bound for United States," within law imposing penalty (Tariff Act of 1922, 88 581584 [19 USCA §§ 481 note, 484-486]).-U. S. v. 63 Kegs of Malt, 27 F. (2d) 741.

129 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Statutory penalties are incurred where vessel bound to United States fails to produce manifest, or has on board unmanifested merchandise, within 12 miles of coast (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 584, 594 [19 USCA $$ 486, 498]).-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

That liquor-laden vessel produced no manifest, rather than false one, held not to require imposition of $500 penalty only (Tariff Act 1922, § 584 [19 USCA § 486]).—Id.

That sale of liquor for beverage purposes is forbidden does not preclude it from having value, for purpose of assessing penalty for unlawful importation (Tariff Act 1922, § 584 [19 USCA § 486]; 19 USCA § 234).—Id.

130(9) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) That liquor-laden vessel produced no manifest, rather than false one, held not to preclude forfeiture (Tariff Act 1922, § 584 [19 USCA § 486]).-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296. affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

Liquor cargo held subject to forfeiture for failure to produce manifest, since it was in master's possession as consignee for disposition (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 431, 584 [19 USCA §§ 241, 486]).-Id.

130(11) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Conviction of master is not necessary before government may proceed against vessel and cargo seized for unlawfully attempting to import intoxicating liquor (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 431, 581, 583, 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 241, 481, 485, 486, 498]). -Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

131 (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) If liquor cargo was properly forfeited, owner could not question order directing its destruction (Tariff Act 1922, §§ 431. 581. 583. 584, 594 [19 USCA §§ 241, 481, 485, 486, 498]).-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

133 (6) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Evidence held to warrant finding that liquor-laden vessel was bound for United States when challenged within 12-mile limit.-Gillam v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 296, affirming decree (D. C.) The Vinces, 20 F. (2d) 164.

Forfeiture of liquor cargo and vessel for master's failure to produce manifest held not defeated where alleged owner did not sustain burden of proving ownership (Tariff Act, §§ 431, 584, 615 [19 USCA §§ 241, 486, 525]).-Id.

DAMAGES.

I. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GENERAL. 6 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Damages may be uncertain as to existence, nature, or cause.-Calkins v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 27 F. (2d) 314. Recovery will not ordinarily be denied because damages are difficult of ascertainment. -Id.

Liability for breach of contract cannot be escaped because of uncertainty as to amount of damages. Id.

III. GROUNDS AND SUBJECTS OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES.

(A) Direct or Remote, Contingent, or Prospective Consequences or Losses. 22 (U.S.C.C.A.Mich.) "General damages" are those naturally following breach of contract, whereas "special damages" are those that ensue because of special circumstances.Ruggles v. Buffalo Foundry & Machine Co., 27 F. (2d) 234.

(B) Evidence.

184 (U.S.C.C.A.Neb.) Proof must show with reasonable certainty that plaintiff suffered damages because of wrongful act or omission of defendant.-Calkins v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 27 F.(2d) 314.

(C) Proceedings for Assessment.

208(1) (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) In action for moneys expended and profits lost on breach of contract, evidence of profits held sufficient to go to jury.-Pipe & Tube Bending Corporation_of America v. Cornine-Hakanson Die-Casting Co., 27 F. (2d) 32.

DISMISSAL AND NONSUIT.

II. INVOLUNTARY.

73 (U.S.D.C.N.Y.) Whether sewer assessment was reasonable, fair, and equal could not be determined on motion to dismiss complaint in action involving validity of assessment.Adam Schumann Associates v. City of New York, 27 F. (2d) 618.

DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING ATTOR

NEYS.

8 (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Prosecuting officers have duty of protecting persons from unfounded accusation.-U. S. ex rel. Hassell v. Mathues, 27 F. (2d) 137.

DRAINS.

1. ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE.

2(1) (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Law authorizing drainage bonds not of "equal dignity" but superior in obligation and privilege to prior bonds held unconstitutional as impairing obligation of contract (Acts Fla. 1927, c. 12016; Rev. Gen. St. Fla. 1920, §§ 1160-1188, 1178; Const. U. S. art. 1, § 10).-Rorick v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 27 F. (2d) 377.

14(4) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Legality of drainage district's organization cannot be collaterally attacked (C. S. N. C. § 5379).-Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. Louis, 27 F. (2d) 286.

18 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Law authorizing issuance of drainage district bonds and their issuance thereunder became part of contract, as though written on face of bonds.-Rorick v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 27 F.(2d) 377.

C20 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Amended answer, setting up different defenses in action for interest claring district organization and bond assesson drainage district bonds and judgment dements invalid in proceedings to which plaintiff was not party or privy, held properly stricken (Pub. Laws N. C. 1909, c. 442 [C. S. §§ 53125382]).-Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. Louis, 27 F. (2d) 286.

Refusal to permit drainage district receiver to intervene in action for interest on district bonds held proper (C. S. N. C. § 5361).—Id.

Plaintiff held properly allowed to show ownership of drainage district bonds in suit for interest thereon.-Id.

Admission of testimony as to matter not personally supervised by witness, note without proof of execution or entries thereon, and newspaper notice of sale of collateral drainage district bonds to payee suing for interest thereon, held not error.-Id.

Evidence in action for interest on drainage district bonds held sufficient to go to jury and sustain verdict for plaintiff.-Id.

Drainage district receiver, appointed by state court in suit to annul district organization, cannot intervene in federal court suit by bank, not party nor privy to former suit, for interest on

district bonds (Pub. Laws N. C. 1909, c. 442 [C. S. §§ 5312-5382]).—Id.

20 (U.S.D.C.Fla.) Suit to enjoin issuance of drainage district bonds held not premature, because before issuance thereof.-Rorick v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 27 F. (2d) 377.

II. ASSESSMENTS

AND SPECIAL TAXES.

90 (U.S.D.C.Kan.) Drainage district held proper party plaintiff to collect drainage assessment, though assessment was certified to county.-Fairfax Drainage Dist. of Wyandotte County v. Kansas City, Mo., 27 F. (2d) 613.

ELECTION OF REMEDIES.

3(4) (U.S.C.C.A.Pa.) Shipper of coal diverted to others by government held entitled to full damages from government less amount received in settlement from divertees, notwithstanding settlement with divertees.-Archibald McNeil & Sons v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 212, modifying judgment (D. C.) Archibald McNeil & Sons Co. v. U. S., 23 F. (2d) 123.

ESTOPPEL.

III. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. (B) Grounds of Estoppel.

~70 (2) (U.S.C.C.A.Mass.) Warehouseman is not estopped to rely on want of offer of payment by failure to demand it.-National Dock & Storage Warehouse Co. v. U. S., 27 F. (2d) 4, affirming judgment (D. C.) 21 F.(2d) 755.

78(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Mo.) Remaindermen held not estopped to claim interest in property and securities held by life tenant's trustees. by agreement for exercise of rights to purchase additional stock.-Buder v. Franz, 27 F. (2d) 101.

Remaindermen held not estopped to assert interest in securities by agreement of life tenant, or by assumption of life tenant's trustees, relative to exercise of rights to take additional stock.-Id.

78(3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Copurchasers stating they would not purchase, but agreeing to pay rent provided in contract, held estopped to claim right to purchase. First Nat. Bank v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., of Glens Falls, N. Y., 27 F. (2d) 64.

(C) Persons Affected.

98 (3) (U.S.C.C.A.S.C.) Heirs, who accepted payments from estate and permitted administrator and copurchaser to pay rent, were estopped to claim under contract.-First Nat. Bank v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., of Glen Falls, N. Y., 27 F. (2d) 64.

EVIDENCE.

I. JUDICIAL NOTICE.

23(1) (U.S.Sup.La.) Court knows tax assessments in Louisiana are made in spring and summer, and no collection is made until fall.(D. C.) St. Louis & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Nattin, 27 F.(2d) 766, decree affirmed 48 S. Ct. 438.

43(1) (U.S.D.C.Ga.) Court does not judicially notice bankruptcy proceeding in suit against bankrupt.-In re Barrett & Co., 27 F. (2d) 159.

II. PRESUMPTIONS.

EQUITY.

I. JURISDICTION. PRINCIPLES, AND

MAXIMS.

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

39(1) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) In equity, all issues must be finally disposed of.-(D. C.) Alonzo B. Hayden, Inc., v. Town of Covington, 27 F. (2d) 354, decree affirmed Town of Covington v. Alonzo B. Hayden, Inc., 27 F.(2d) 360.

(B) Remedy at Law and Multiplicity of Suits.

46 (U.S.C.C.A.Okl.) Legal remedy to oust equity jurisdiction, must be as certain, prompt, and effective as equitable one.-Jefferson v. Gypsy Oil Co., 27 F. (2d) 304.

II. LACHES AND STALE DEMANDS. 67 (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) "Estoppel by laches" is failure to do something which should be done or to enforce right at proper time.— Hutchinson v. Kenney, 27 F. (2d) 254.

87(1) (U.S.D.C.Pa.) Courts of equity_take cognizance of statutory bars.-George Haiss Mfg. Co. v. Link Belt Co., 27 F. (2d) 397.

Equity will sustain plea of laches, when action at law is barred by statute.-Id.

87(2) (U.S.C.C.A.N.C.) Mere delay, not amounting to bar of statute, does not generally constitute laches.-Hutchinson v. Kenney, 27 F. (2d) 254.

EQUITY RULES.

See Court Rules Cited or Construed.

to be

vaild, must be based on facts, not another presumption.-General Reinsurance Corporation v. Southern Surety Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, 27 F.(2d) 265.

67(3) (U.S.D.C.Iowa) Adjudication of insolvency is evidence that may be considered in establishing prior insolvency.-Andrews v. Lytle, 27 F. (2d) 898.

71 (U.S.D.C.Mass.) There is strong presumption that stamped letters addressed to well-known person were delivered to addressee. -Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Post Pub. Co., 27 F. (2d) 556.

83(1) (U.S.C.C.A.Porto Rico) When Executive Department has passed on prerequisites of act of Congress, there is presumption of regularity of such administrative acts.-Baker v. U. S., 27 F.(2d) 863.

83(2) (U.S.C.C.A.La.) Contractor having cemented joints in water without objection of supervising engineer, his and town's consent must be presumed, discharging contractor of liability. (D. C.) Alonzo B. Hayden, Inc., v. Town of Covington, 27 F.(2d) 354, decree affirmed Town of Covington v. Alonzo B. Hayden, Inc., 27 F. (2d) 360.

IV. RELEVANCY, MATERIALITY, AND COMPETENCY IN GENERAL. (A) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues. 112 (U.S.C.C.A.N.J.) In action for work done and materials furnished in manufacture of vending machines, evidence as to price at which defendant contracted to sell machines held properly admitted.-Pipe & Tube Bending Corporation of America v. Cornine-Hakanson DieCasting Co., 27 F.(2d) 32.