where the intestacy of decedent is in issue whereby he is enabled to use the water to may be set aside. Such decision is only better advantage than the owrer of the prima facie evidence of the facts recited lower mill, the latter has no just ground of therein.-Emmett v. Stauffor.-Filed March complaint or right of action against the 9, 1886.—Md. former for thus controlling the water. owner would construct

WAGERS.--HORSE-RACE.- -NOTICE TO If the latter STAKE-HOLDER NOT TO PAY OVER.-A wager an equally large reservoir he would upon a horse-race is a gaming contract and suffer no damage.-Kirch v. Sandersou.— utterly void. Money bet on a horse-race Filed May 15, 1886.—Wis. may be revoked by either party before it is paid over by the stake-holder. After notice, the stake-holder holds the money subject to the order of the depositor.-Corson v. Neatheny.-Filed May 17, 1886.-Colo.

WATERS AND WATER-COURSES.-DI VERSION OF WATER. Where the back-water from a mill-dam extended upon the land of a railway company and the company drew water therefrom to supply their engines, to the extent that it interfered with the necessary supply of the mill. Held that the company could not use the water to the injury of the mill owner unless it took possession by right of eminent domain.-Penn. Ry. Co. Miller.-Filed April 19, 1886.—Pa.

V.

WATER PRIVILEGES.- -WATER COMPANY.— RIGHT TO CHANGE RATES, -A gas and water company, having granted to the borough the right to use water without charge, reserving the right to change its rates in the future, after a period of 30 years free use of water by the borough, the company change their rates and charge for the use of the water. Held that the town could not refuse to pay because it had notice of the reserved right to change by the company.—Carlisle v. Carlisle G. & W. Co.-Filed May 17, 1886.—Pa.

WAYS.-BREADTH OF ROADS.-PETITION FOR REVIEW.—A petitition for review under the road law, must be presented at the next term of court after the confirmation of WATER-COURSES.-RIGHTS viewer's report. Where the court approves

WATERS AND
OF MILL OWNERS. ALL INTERESTED IN

DRAWING WATER FROM A COMMON DAM.

Where three mills were situate on the same stream, one above another, and each having certain rights in a great dam from which all drew water, the owner of the middle mill repaired the great dam at his own expense and brought an action at law against the owner of the lower mill for contribution of his part of the expense. Held that the remedy was by bill in equity and not at law. The rights of the several mill owners were controlled by the by-laws of a company owning the great dam.—Lamson v. Worces ter.-Filed May 26, 1886.-Vt.

the report of viewers it must direct of what breath the road shall be. If this is not done the parties in interest will not know whether to accept or not.-In Re Road Lackawana Sownship.-Filed March 15, 1886.-Pa.

WAYS.-EMINENT DOMAIN.-DEDICATION OF LAND.—Land may be dedicated for a public highway, with reservation of a portion thereof for use of a railway company, and when such portion has been devoted to the use of the railway company the public use is suspended and so continues as long as used by the railway company.-Ayers v. Penn. Ry. Co.-Filed May 15, 1886.—N. J.

WAYS LOCATION OF.-TIME OF FILING ARPEAL. In the location of highways where an appeal is taken the appellant on damages may file notice of the appeal within 60 days after final judgment in favor of such high

way.

The requirements of Chap. 18, Section 5 are applicable only when no appeal on location has been taken.-B. & M. Ry. Co. v. York Co.-Filed March 15, 1886.-Me.

ES

WILLS.-CONSTRUCTION OF.-LIFE TATE.-Where a will contained these words, "Giving her (testator's wife) full power and authority to sell the whole or any part of my said real estate, and execute deeds thereWAYS.-OBSTRUCTION OF.-SPECIAL IN- for; and in case any of my estate be left JURY. For the obstruction of a public after the death of my said wife, I order it highway an individual cannot maintain an to be divided as follows, etc." Held that action unless he has sustained a special in the widow took only a life estate in the jury. The fact that plaintiff's route to mar- property.-Brockley's Appeal.-Filed May ket is interfered with by obstructions is not such special injury as entitles him to maintain an action therefor.-Sohn v. Cambern. -Filed May 12, 1886.—Ind.

31, 1886.—Pa.

WILL. DOWER.-ELECTION TO TAKE UNDER THE WILL OR DOWER.-The statute provides that when a man dies siezed of lands in fee, leaving a widow but no issue, WILL. BEQUEST FOR LIFE WITH REMAIN- the widow, in lieu of dower, is entitled to DER OVER. INCOME IN CERTAIN BUSINESS one-half of her husband's estate for life. TO BE PAID TO THE WIDOW.-Where a de- It is also provided that where a man dies cedent bequeathed the income from a cer- testate, the wtdow may elect to take under tain business, which he directed to be con- the will or to rely upon her statutory rights tinued, to be paid to his wife for her support, as though he had died intestate. Where a and at her death upon certain conditions husband died testate and the widow filed his interest in the business he directed to be her disciaimer under the will and notice sold, and the proceeds divided among his that she claimed dower, and subsequently children. Held that the widow had only a claimed under the statute one-half of her life estate in the money paid to her during husband's estate. Held that having filed her life.-Proctor v. Proctor.--Filed Feb. her claim of dower she could not subse24, 1886.-Mass. quently amend her claim and rely upon WILL-BILL IN EQUITY.-JURISDICTION Statutory rights.—Matthews v. Matthews.— OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-The or- Filed May 7, 1886.-Mass. phan's court has exclusive jurisdiction to ascertain the amount of estates of dece- WILL.-LIFE ESTATE WITH POWER ΤΟ dents, and to order distribution thereof, but SELL.-REMAINDER.-In a will the followthe court of common pleas may make a ing clause occurred: "After my lawful debts decree establishing rights under a will if are paid and discharged, I give, bequeath, such decree be in accord with the provisions of the will-Hall's Appeal.-Filed April 19, 1886.-Pa.

and dispose of as follows, towit: To my beloved wife, Margaret Jones, all that is in my possession at the time of my decease, and also my wife have right to sell the estate, if WILL. CHOSES IN ACTION.-CONSTRUC- that will be her choice. And after my TION.-Where a testator bequeathed to his wife's decease, the property to be parted to son "all my personal property in the city of my dear children in equal shares." Held Philadelphia, excepting securities of every that this vested only a life estate in the kind, and building association stock," his widow with remainder in fee in the children. interest in a partnership firm in Philadelphia -In Re Will of Jones v. Jones.-Filed did not pass under the bequest. Held that May 15, 1886.—Wis. the intention of the testator was not to include any choses in action.-Sloan's Appeal. Filed Feb. 23, 1886--Pa.

WILL-LIFE ESTATE. --BEQUEST OVER.— Where, in a will, there is a bequest to one

person, and in case of his death to another, the gift over is conditioned to take effect only in the event of the death of the prior legatee before the period of payment or distribution, unless a contrary intention appears.-Post v. Van Houten Bx'rs.-Filed March 9, 1886.-N. J.

POWER.

that there was no error in this charge.Sharp v. City of Erie.-Filed May 17, 1886.—Pa.

WRIT AND PROCESS. DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.-Actions are commenced by filing complaint and issuing summons. The summons may be issued within one year after the filing of the complaint. If the summons be issued within one year and service had within a reasonable time, although the year expired before the service the action will not on that account be dis

WILL. SALE OF LAND UNDER MONEY TREATED AS LAND.-Where a testator directs that his executor sell his lands and pay certain liens and debts, when sold and the debts paid, the surplus, if any, must be missed.-Cowell v. Stuart.-Filed May 17, treated as real estate. The orphan's court has full power to control the advertisements by the executor in the sale of lands.Parker v. Allen, Adm'r.-Filed May 24, 1886.-N. J.

WILL. SUSPENSION DURING TWO LIVES IN BEING.—A trust which is not terminable with or within any two lives in being is in violation of statute and void. Where property is thus bequeathed in trust, which is not terminable within any two ascertained lives, the will is void and the estate shall be treated as if the testator had died intestate. -Rice v. Barrett.-Filed April 13, 1886.— N. Y.

1886.-Cal.

Conlyn v. Parker.
Filed May 17, 1886.-Pa.

(A scire facias being issued to revive a judgment entered on a bond given by a married woman, she canot plead her coverture unless the record of the original judgment showed her coverture.)

Riegal v. Denhard.

Filed Mrrch 15, 1886.—Pa. (When all the kindred of an intestate are incompetent to take the administration of his estate by reason of minority, and another is appointed, upon their arriving at full age, the letters granted to another are terminated.)

Gross'v- Drager.

Filed May 15, 1886. Wis.

WILLS.-UNCERTAINTY AS TO DEVISES. EFFECT OF CODICII.-Where a will gives the whole of the testator's estate to one for life, and a codicil is added giving legacies to others, the codicil modifies the will and the (In an action based upon an order for a latter legacies are payable unaffected by the machine signed by one who did not underA bequest "for the special ben- stand English, it is competent to show by efit of the worthy, deserving poor ** parol evidence that the signer relied entirely widow's and orphans residing in Bridgeport, on what the seller told him and did not unConnecticut," is helà good and valid.derstand the purport of the written order.) Beardsley's Ex'rs v. Bridgeport.-Filed

life estate.

February 13, 1886.-Conn.

Seofield v. Blackmar.
Filed Moy 24, 1886.—Pa.

WITNESS.-INSTRUCTIONS AS TO CREDI- (One sold a lot of oil for future delivery. BILITY. Where the testimony of plaintiff On the day agreed upon he tendered the and defendant were in direct conflict, the purchaser a certificate in proper form for court charged the jury that "if the jury the oil which was refused. He then sold found that plaintiff had willfully misrepre- the oil at the market price, which was below sented in any material particular, they could the price he had sold it for. Held that he not only disregard his evidenbe, but it must might recover the difference of the defaultthrow suspicion on his whole case." Held ing purchaser.)

Maher's Appeal.

Filed April 12, 1886.—Pa.

(An omission to make a proper defense to an action on a promissory note cannot be remedied by a bill in equity subsequently filed.)

Dealey v. P. & R. Ry. Co.

Filed April 12, 1886.-Pa. (Where a collision of trains occurred by reason of the negligence of a station agent and the engineer was killed, held that his representatives could not recover because the station agent and engineer were co-employes.)

O'Brien v. Cavanaugh.

Filed May 6, 1886.

Filed May 12, 1886.—Mich. (Where a witness testifies that an injury (In the absence of evidence that the was caused by a defective fence and subseowner of premises has no right to the pos- quently that it was a defective cattle-guard, session of the same, he may maintain an the variance may go to the credibility of the of trespass on said property.)

Tremayne v. Roberts.

Filed April 29, 1886.-Mich.

witness.)

Wells v. Wilcox.

Filed April 23, 1886.-Iowa.

(The description of property in a chattel

(Where a trial is had to a jury before a mo.tgage is sufficient if it will lead to the justice and the jury disagree, and are dis- identification of the property with certainty.)