413, 28 L. Ed. 401; Kelly v. Ben. Ass'n,

99, 87 lL. Ed. 1083.

490, 85 L. Bd. 97; ‘Ennis v. Bldg. Ass’n, 102 Towa, 520, 71 N. W. 426; Anthony v.

854, 84 L. Ed. 222; Hollander v. Baiz (D.

806, 36 L. Ed. 672; Steamboat Co. v. Livingston, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 713. Now more commonly called “intrastate” commerce—International commerce. Commerce between states or nations entirely poreee to each other.

875, 43 L. Ed. 178; Moss v. Smoker, 2

500, 30 L. Ed. 644; Eastman y. Miller, 118 Iowa, 404, 85 N. W. 635; St. Mark’s Church v. Teed, 120 N. Y. 583, 24 N. E. 1014;

265, 41 L. Ed. 632; Gillingham v. Railroad

592, 30 L. Ed. 694; Singleton v. Fritsch, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 96; Thomas v. Hot Springs, 34 Ark. 557, 36 Am. Rep. 24; Strain v. Chieago Portrait Co. (C. C.) 126 Fed. 835.

968, 38 L. Ed. 793; Union Pac. R. Co. v.

508, 46 L. Ed. 851.—Preliminary examination. The examination of a person charged with crime, before a magistrate, as above explained. See In re Dolph, 17 Colo. 35, 28 Pac. 470; Van Buren v. State, 65 Neb. 223, 91 N. W. $01.—Private on. An exainination or interrogation, by a magistrate, of a married woman who is grantor in a deed or other conveyance, held out of the presence of her husband, for the pprpose of ascertaining whether her will in the matter is free and unconstrained. Muir v. Galloway, 61° Cal. 506} Hadley v. Geiger, 9 N. J. Law, 233.—Re-examination. An examination of a witness after a cross-examination, upon matters arising out of such cross-examination.—Separate examination. The interrogation of a married woman, who appears before ah -officer for the purpose of acknowledging a deed or other instrument, conducted by such officer in private or out of the hearing of her husband, in order to ascertain if she acts of her own will and without compulsion or constraint of the ‘hus band. Also the examination of a witness in pri; vate or apart from, and out of the hearing of, the other witnesses in the same cause.

484, 46 L. Ed. 584; Fong Yue Ting v. U.

495, 37 L. Ed. 276.

341, 33 L. Ed. 687.

766, 40 L. Ed. 903; Chicago & W. I. R.

143, 32 L. Ed. 526. The good-will of a business is the expectation of continued public patronage, but it does not include a right to use the name of any person from whom it was acquired. Civ. Code Cal. § 992: Civ. Code Dak. § 577. The term “good-will” does not mean simply the advantage of occupying particular premises which have been occupied by a manufacturer, etc. It means every advantage, every positive advantage, that has been acquired by a proprietor in carrying on his business, whether connected with the premises in which the business is conducted. or with the name under which it is managed, or with any other matter carrying with it the benefit of the business. Glen & Hall Mfg. Co. v. Hall, 61 N. Y. 226, 19 Am. Rep. 278.

1069, 29 IL. Ed. 96; Latta v. Shawk, 14

341. 33 L. Ed. 687; Barney v. Winona &

935, 20 L. Ed. 89; State v. Clark, 60

449. 28 L. Ed. 457.—Internal police. A term sometimes applied to the police. Hower, or

889, 39 L. Ed. 982; Foot v. Stiles, 57 N. Y. 405; In re Lawyers’ Tax Cases, 8 Heisk. (Tenn.) 650. “Judge” and “Justice” (q. v.) are often used in substantially the same sense.

746, 35 L. Ed. 391; U. 8. v. Julian, 162

375, 41 L. Ed. 799; U. 8. v. Durant (D.

962, 30 L. Ed. 776.

723, 31 L. Ed. 634; Wade v. Kalbfleisch, 58 N. Y. 284, 17 Am. Rep. 250; State v.

207, 29 L. Pa, 475, 72

7, 48 L. Ed. 241; Laurie v. Douglass, 15 Mees. & W. 746.

719, 27 L. Ed. 739; Cardington v. Frederick, 46 Ohio St. 442, 21 N. B. 766: Gifford

100, 87 L. Ed. 1071; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 120: De Lovio'v. ’ Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 428; U. 8. v. Morel, 26

760, 34 L. Ed. 219.

418, 37 L. Ed. 2459; Allaire v. Ketcham, 55 N. J. Eq. 168, 35 Atl. 900; Bowers v.

601, 28 L. Ed. 1098; Railway Co. vy. ‘ Oconto, 50 Wis. 189, 6 N. W. 607, 36 Am.

443, 27 L. Ed. 506; Cochran v. Ward, 5

311, 44 L. Ed. 423; Bosher v. Richmond & H. Land Co., 89 Va. 455, 16 S. EB. 360, 37 Am. St. Rep. 879; Yale Gas Stove

652, 28 L. Ed. 585.

1014, 29 L. Ed. 240; Merrill y. Sherburne,

445, 27 L. Bd. 1070; Gough vy. Bell, N. J. Law, 464—Riparian rights. The rights of the owners of lands on the banks of watercourses, relating to the water. its use, ownership of soil under the stream, accretions, etc. See Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 497, 19 L. Ed. 984: Mobile Transp. Co. v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 830 South. 645, 64 R. A. : 86 Am. St. Rep. 143; McCarthy vy. Murphy, 119 Wis. 159, 96 N. W. 581.

210, 28 Ih Ex. 198; Goodwin v. Kerr, State v. Wentworth, 85 N. H. 448; . Packard, 5 Gray (Mass.) 108; Clemens

678, 39 I. Ed. 7593 Springer v. U. S., . §. 602, 26 L. Bd. 253: Thomasson

195, 32 L. Ed. 571; Stinchfleld v. Gillis, 96. Cal. 33, 30 Pac. 889; Synnott v. Shaughnessy, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 122, 7 Pac. 82; Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 Pac. 948, 83 Am.