to be admitted to the Bar of Lancaster County in the uniform of the United States, and the first lawyer to die in active service.

I knew "Dan" as a child, as a boy,

and as a young man.

A marked characteristic of his was his exemplary conduct always under all circumstances. He was possessed of a creative mind, keen intellect, and precise, deliberate and logical reasoning faculties. Socially, his intimates were the very best of men, regardless of wealth or social position, and he was a Greek Letter Fraternity man in college. Morally, never a cleaner man wore the silver bars. He consecrated himself to his own convictions regardless of money or popularity: a man of resolute and fearless courage. His noble character as a soldier was disclosed by his enlisting immediately with the first beat of the war drums. His last words to his commanding officer, "God bless you, Major; go after them, shows better than any words can express of what kind of stuff the boy was made.

For a man to be taken with such a bright and promising future makes us question whether God is really in the heavens, and whether everything is really right with the world. Although it is great and glorious to die for one's country, it is greater and more glorious to die in behalf of, and in defense of those principles laid down nineteen hundred years ago by the Great Teacher, the Man of Galilee. Good must be the final goal of all this ill. Although Dan's body lies buried on Flanders field, his soul goes marching on.

"Far off thou art, but ever nigh;

I have thee still, and I rejoice;
I prosper, circled with thy voice;
I shall not lose thee tho I die."

-Tennyson.

Oliver S. Schaeffer, Esq., said in part: MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE LANCASTER BAR:

I rise to say a few words, prompted solely by the spirit of this occasion. I knew Lieutenant Daniel S. Keller as a friend. I mourn his untimely but heroic death. He lived and died a true Christian. His character was without a blemish and his life was as pure as the lilies

of the field. His exemplary conduct and sacred sacrifice are an inspiration to us and to our liberty-loving land.

John E. Malone, Esq., also paid an eloquent tribute to the deceased, and feet as a tribute of respect. moved that those present rise to their

Common Pleas-Law.

Lancaster Foundry Co. v. Sweigart. Sale-Defects in goods-Duty of purchaser-Affidavit of defense-Set-off -Practice Act of 1915.

In an action for the price of castings made for and delivered to the defendant an affidavit of defense is insufficient, as to its averment that "the defendant on receipt of said goods of the same, discovered that 317 pounds of or shortly thereafter, and upon examination the said castings were very carelessly casted, badly out of shape, and could not be used for the purposes for which they were ordered." returned the defective castings or kept them The defendant should have either promptly and claimed a deduction from the price and

so averred in his affidavit.

In such case the averment is sufficient as

to other goods shipped that defendant had not had so notified plaintiff but removed them from the street at plaintiff's request.

ordered them and refused to receive them and

An affidavit of defense claiming a set-off must be served on the plaintiff and contain a notice to file a counter claim within fifteen days, etc.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. C. P. of Lancaster County. May Term, 1918, No. 25.

Hugh R. Fulton, for rule.
H. Edgar Sherts, contra.

November 9, 1918. Opinion by HassLER, J.

The plaintiff's claim in this case is for defendant. Some were delivered on May castings made for and delivered to the 26, 1917; others on June 2, 1917; and the last lot on October 16, 1917. No question is raised in the affidavit of defense as to the quantity of the castings delivered or as to the prices charged for them. It is alleged in it that "The defendant on the receipt of the said goods, or shortly thereafter, and upon examination of the same, discovered that 317 pounds of the

for the plaintiff at his request, he is not liable for their payment.

This we think is not a good defense to these items of plaintiff's claim. The castings were delivered to the defendant at plaintiff's place of business. If they were not as ordered the defendant should not have taken them away. Having done so he should either have returned to the plaintiff all such as were defective as soon as he discovered their defect, or kept them and claimed a deduction in price. This he should have done promptly. He does not allege that he has done either, and his affidavit of defense is, therefore, insufficient to prevent judgment as to the items in question. It is true that in the concluding part of his affidavit of defense the defendant claims $28.53 for defective castings. Whether this is the price charged for them by the plaintiff or the difference between the price charged and their value as defective castings does not appear. His affidavit of defense does not comply with the practice act of 1915 in claiming a setoff for the reason that it was not served on the plaintiff and does not contain a notice to it to file a counter claim within fifteen days, &c. We cannot, therefore, consider any set-off contained in it: Fulton Farmers' Association v. Bomberger, 34 L. L. R. 325.

As to the items for goods delivered on October 16, 1917, the defendant says in his affidavit of defense: "The defendant denies that he ever ordered the goods billed to him under date of October 16, 1917, but states that the said goods were shipped by him by trolley express after he had notified the plaintiff company he would not receive the same, and he had never ordered the said goods, nor had he authorized anybody to receive them for him, but that the plaintiff company after having shipped the goods to Strasburg requested him to remove them from the street and that they would pay him for the trouble."

There is a good defense to plaintiff's claim as to this item. If the defendant did not order the goods and did not re

The total claim of the plaintiff, after deducting the sum of $100.00 paid on account, is $500.14. The castings delivered on October 16, 1917, amounted to $123.32, for which we think the affidavit. of defense sufficient to prevent judgment. This leaves the sum of $376.82, with interest from July 2, 1917, amounting to $30.14, making a total amount of $406.96, for which we think the affidavit insufficient to prevent judgment, and for which amount we enter judgment for the plaintiff, with leave to proceed for the balance of his claim.

Rule made absolute.

Letter from Justice Simpson to the Bar.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LANCASTER Law REVIEW:

As it is manifestly impossible for me to personally thank all those who voted for me for Judge of the Supreme Court, may I ask you to publish this letter, to the end that all who read it may know that I highly appreciate the honor bestowed by each voter who cast his ballot for me, and especially do I appreciate the affection of the lawyers in all that they did. It is my purpose, with God's help, to give the best that is in me to the service to which I am called.

And may I also say that now and hereafter I earnestly desire the criticisms of the Bar regarding anything I may say or do, or the manner in which I may say or do it; and invite suggestions that will aid the Court in the more efficient performance of its duties. The judges of the appellate courts see but from one angle, those of the lower court from another, the bar from still another, and the public from a fourth; and the four, if combined, will make the 360° of a perfect circle, to which I fain would have. Pennsylvania's judicial system attain. It can only be attained, however, if the Bar will do its part.

Yours very truly,

ALEX. SIMPSON, Jr.

facts: The defendant was elected tax

Insanity as a defense to contract-Affidavit of defense-Question of correctness of amount claimed-Particularity in affidavit.

County. On March 25, 1912, he gave the bond required by law in the sum of $17,000.00, conditioned for the faithful! performance of his duties as tax collector for the year 1912, upon which the plaintiffs were sureties. It was subsequently ascertained that the defendant failed to pay over to the supervisors of Warwick Township the sum of $71.17 of the road taxes collected by him, and which it was his duty according to law to so pay over, and on the 29th of November, 1916, a judgment was entered against the plaintiffs on the bond upon which they were sureties.

Such affidavit is further insufficient in that it does not allege that the defendant was insane when the money was received by him and not naid over which was five years before the filing of the affidavit, and because the correctness of the amount claimed could not be questioned collaterally.

In order to prevent judgment for the amount claimed it must be alleged in the affidavit of

defense that this amount is not correct. It is insufficient to allege that the defendant does not know whether the amount is correct.

The allegation in the affidavit that more money could or should have been collected from the books by the defendant's successor is insufficient as to particularity in that it does not allege any amount.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. C. P. of Lancaster Co. January Term, 1918, No. 17. Coyle & Keller, for rule. B. F. Davis, contra.

November 9, 1918. Opinion by HASSLER, J.

The plaintiffs' claim, as shown in their statement, is based on the following

him for the year 1913 he failed to pay over to the supervisors of Warwick Township, as it was his duty under the law to do, the sum of $328.01, and that on November 29, 1916, judgment was entered on the bond against the plaintiffs for that amount.

On January 27, 1917, the plaintiffs paid to the supervisors of Warwick Township the above mentioned amount for which judgment had been entered against them on the bonds, together with costs and interest, the whole amounting to $421.35, and they now seek to recover this amount from the defendant.

An affidavit of defense has been filed by the defendant's son, Aaron Gass, in which he alleges that he represents his Section 12 of the Act of May 14, 1915, father in filing it. This is authorized by P. L. 483. None of the averments of the plaintiffs' statements are denied in the

affidavit of defense, but it seeks to avoid liability for the reason that for the "last two years and upwards" the defendant was unable and unfit to attend to business by reason of his weak mental condition, and that he was weak-minded, and unable, unfit and incapable to transact legal business.