tified generally, it is sufficient to answer that there was no evidence to support such assertion, and as he was a competent witness to prove the marriage, he undoubtedly had a right to be called as a witness. See Commonwealth v. Eberly, 22 Lanc. Law Review, 70. It is presumed that he testified only to those facts to which he was competent to testify.

The reasons assigned in the motion to quash are now overruled, and the motion dismissed.

Motion to quash dismissed.

Commonwealth v. Howell.

---

Indictment for stealing note Sufficiency of.

An indictment for stealing "a certain note for $500 signed by E. K. Denlinger, dated October 15, 1912, payable three months after date to the order of the United Stores Association at the Gap National Bank, Gap, Pa.," I will not be set aside on demurrer on the ground that it does not describe the stolen note or state that it was a promissory note.

Q. S. of Lancaster County, September Sessions, 1913, No. 4. Indictment for larceny. Demurrer.

fense is set forth; second, that it is not asserted in the indictment that the note was a promissory note; and third, that the counts are defective, because they do not describe the stolen note.

I cannot see any good reason to sustain this demurrer. The Act of March 31, 1860, P. L., 382, section 104, provides that if any person shall steal any bank bill, note, draft or check, of or on any bank, or any bill of exchange, order, warrant, draft, bill or promissory note, for the payment of money, or any certificate or security whatsoever, entitling or evidencing the title of any person or body corporate, to any share, portion or interest in any public debt or security, or fund, either of this Commonwealth or of the United States, or of any of the states thereof, or of any foreign state, or to any interest in any stock, fund or debt of any body corporate, company or society, or to any deposit in any saving bank or company, being the property of another person, or any corporation, association or society, notwithstanding the said enumerated particulars are, or may be deemed in law, choses in action, such person shall be deemed guilty or larceny."

is clearly a promissory note, no matter

The note described in the indictment

whether it is so called therein or not. It was the subject of larceny, and, when

for demurrer.

John M. Groff, District Attorney, and Chas. W. Eaby, Assistant District Attor

ney, contra.

iously stolen, a sufficient offense was charged. Nowhere is there any provision that the note must be described specifically in the indictment. A reference to it which will enable the defendant to understand its contents is all I think the

The defendant in this case is charged; with larceny and receiving stolen goods. The indictment sets forth that on or about the fifteenth day of October, 1912, he did feloniously steal "a certain note for $500.00, signed by E. K. Denlinger, dated October 15, 1912, payable three months after date, to the order of the United Stores Association, at the Gap National Bank, Gap, Pa." The demurrer

There is, in my judgment, no merit in the reasons set forth in the demurrer, and it is, therefore, overruled.

Demurrer overruled.

Legal Miscellany.

The Lord High Chancellor and the

Great Seal.

In order to attend the meeting of the American Bar Association in Montreal, Lord Haldane, the Lord High Chancellor of England, had to put the Great Seal in commission. This consists in the appointment of three commissioners who are entrusted for the time being with the actual custody of the Seal and some of the important duties of the Chancellor. The placing of the Seal in commission was not a new thing. But the fact that Lord Haldane did this and at the same time retained his position as Lord High Chancellor did constitute an innovation. Never before apparently has the Clavis Regni been put in commission by a chancellor who continued in office. Lord Haldane has therefore established a precedent. Unlike his predecessors Wolsey and Brougham, his departure from tradition has been fully approved and commended by the King.

The custody of the Great Seal and of the king's conscience has seemed such an important function in England in times gone by that down to 1830 no chancellor, with the exception of Cardinal Wolsey, ever dared to leave the kingdom during his tenure of office. In fact, as Lord Haldane pointed out in his address at Montreal, Cardinal Wolsey almost lost his head for an unpermitted journey to Calais. In 1830 Lord Brougham took his place on the woolsack, and a year or two later aroused much excitement and indignation by his unauthorized visit to Scotland, where he is said to have lost the Great Seal while playing games and antics in a Scottish country house. A lady of the party found the Seal, and made the Lord Chancellor redeem it by playing a game of blindman'sbuff. While the game proceeded he was guided by music to a tea-chest where the Seal had been carefully hidden. That the keeper of the roval conscience should thus make a plaything of the Great Seal of England annoyed the King to such an

extent that it is said he referred to Brougham's journey as "high treason."

Important as the functions of the Lord High Chancellor were, and in spite of the fact that he had the king's ear, he seems in the early days to have received a salary about as commensurate with the dignity of his position as the salary of many American judges to-day is with their positions. From one of the records," says Lord Haldane, "it appears that his wages were five shillings, a simnel cake, two seasoned simnels, one sextary of household wine, one large wax candle, and forty small pieces of candle."

The meeting of the American Bar Association at Montreal, which was the occasion of the Lord Chancellor's visit to this country, was the first to be held outside of the United States. Its international aspect was further emphasized by the presence of the distinguished Maitre L. Labori, the foremost lawyer of France. Particularly in keeping, therefore, with the spirit of the gathering was Lord Haldane's address, in which he presented an eloquent plea for a full international "sittlichkeit." Lord HalDane explained that "sittlichkeit " is the German for that "system or habitual or customary conduct, ethical rather than legal, which embraces all those obligations of the citizen which it is 'bad form' or or not the thing' to disregard.” “Sittlichkeit" thus occupies a field midway between the dictates of conscience and the commands of the law.

Upon the lawyers of the three great nations represented in the assemblage to which he spoke he urged the nourishing of a "sittlichkeit " of international scope, because he said to him the conception seemed more hopeful of realization between nations bound together by a "common inheritance in traditions, surroundings, and in ideals."

It is interesting to note that in the course of an interview published in the New York "Sun" for August thirtieth, Lord Haldane said, "I am convinced that the Harvard Law School is a model for the world." On another occasion the newspapers quoted him as saying that he considered the school second to none. It should be gratifying, not alone to

graduates and friends of the Harvard Law School, but to Americans generally, that the Lord High Chancellor of England could make these statements of an American school of law.-Harvard Law Review.

No Defense.

Lawyer-"I think I can get you a divorce, madam, for cruel and inhuman treatment-but do you think your husband will fight the suit?"

Woman" Fight! Why, the little shrimp dasn't even come into a room where I am!"-Truth Seeker.

Vox et Præterea Nihil.

That "the empty wagon makes the most noise" is a familiar proverb, and at our mother's knee we have been taught of the "loud laugh that oft proclaims the vacant mind," but it has remained for the Supreme Court of Missouri to show its practical application to a matter in judgment. In Donaldson v. Donaldson, 155 Southwestern Reporter, 791, the court says: "We pause to notice that counsel for appellant assume to refer to one of Mr. Donaldson's counsel as 'a

prestidigator,' etc. In taking that course counsel overlook the her danger signal in the dictum of Gary, J., in that behalf, viz.: Ill nature and vituperation in a brief excite suspicion that its maker is on the wrong side of the case. Touhy v. Daly, 27 Ill. App. loc. cit., 460. That dictum is not without standing ground in reason, for is not the cynical advice of General T. to an inquiring young brother often followed (more's the pity), viz.: When the law and the facts are both against you, there are only two courses left open-yell like an Indian, or abuse the attorney on the other side.' But enough of that. l'erbum sat sapienti."-Docket.

There are Others.

'Let me write the songs of a nation," said the ready-made philosopher, "and I care not who makes the laws."

"I won't go quite so far as that," replied Senator Sorghum; "but let me write the amendments and I care not who draws up the bills."-Washington Star.

LANCASTER LAW REVIEW.

By the will of Elizabeth Laub, a trust was created for the use of her daughter Louisa Laub for life. After the death of the testamentary trustee on her peti

A trustee having accounted for moneys received as trustee, and paid over the interest to the cestui que trust for eighteen years, cannot have the confirmation of the account stricken

off, and withdraw the account on the death of

the cestui que trust, on the suggestion of parties interested that certain moneys included in the trust fund really belonged to the individual estate of the cestui que trust.

If these moneys belonged absolutely to the cestui que trust, it is presumed that she added it to her trust estate, and intended it to become an indissoluble part thereof as fully as if she had executed a deed of trust therefor conformable with the testamentary trust.

A petition should aver that the petitioner believes and expects to be able to prove its allegations.

O. C. of Lancaster County. May Term, 1913. No. 217. Rule to strike off decree of confirmation of accounts,

appointed trustee. The petition suggesting this appointment concludes: "who has in hand her other estates, which she owns in her own right "—that is, alleging that Elizabeth A. Laub was indebted to Louisa Laub. After the death of the last-named trustee on the petition of Louisa Laub The Peoples Trust, Savings and Deposit Company, now The Peoples Trust Company, was appointed trustee. The petition for its appointment concludes as follows: "She therefore prays your Honors to appoint a suitable party

as trustee under said will to succeed Elizabeth A. Laub, deceased, and suggests The Peoples Trust and Saving Company of Lancaster, Pa., as a proper party to be appointed as her trustee to carry out the trust under said will of Elizabeth Laub, deceased, according to the Act of Assembly in such cases made and provided."

The administration account of George W. Laub, executor of the will of Elizashows a balance of $5.000.032, which beth Laub, exhibited April 20, 1875, real estate. appears to have been the proceeds of

Elizabeth L. Laub, the executrix of the will of her husband, George W. Laub, deceased, who was the executor of the will of his mother, Elizabeth Laub, and trustee under it of his sister, Louisa Laub, in her account of the administration by him of the trust, exhibited October 24, 1879, by a note indicates that $1,631.87% had been charged on real estate for the use of Louisa Laub, and the balance of $60.89 appears as of the income thereof. It is also noted in this account that Elizabeth Laub's personalty was insufficient to pay her debts.

An

Elizabeth A. Laub died July 28, 1894. No account appears to have been filed of her administration of the trust. auditor was appointed to pass on exceptions to the administration account in her estate and to distribute. While it is alleged in Louisa Laub's petition for the appointment of Elizabeth A. Laub as a