41, 59 N. E. 169; La Beau v. People, 34 N. Y. 223; Sumpter v. State, 11 Fla. 247;

533, 3 N. E. 264; Braman v. Dowse, 12

92. 33 N. BE. 786; Morton v. Immigration

16; Shumate v. Com., 15 Grat. 660; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 539.

445; Blyew v. U. S., 18 Wall. 581, 20 L. ra oe? Erwin y. U. §., 87 Fed. 470, 2 L. R.

122, 45 Am. Rep. 449; Josey v. Trust

490; Bafley v. Martin, 119 Ind. 108, 21 N. 'D. 346.

398; Cooper v. Green, 28 Ark. 54; State v. Board of Public Works, 42 Ohio St. 615; Selden v. Pringle, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 465.

111. _ A departure takes place when, in any pleading, the party deserts the ground that he took in his last antecedent pleading, and resorts to another. Steph. Pl. 410. Or, in other words, when the second pleading contains matter not pursuant to the former, and which does not

35.—Eoclesiastical law. The body of jurisprudence administered by the ecclesiastical courts of England; derived, in large measure, from the canon and civil law. As now restricted, it apDue mainly to the affairs, and the doctrine, iscipline, and worship, of the established ch De Witt v. De Witt, 67 Ohio St. 340. 66 N. E. 186.—Ecclesiastical th ‘ This term, as used in the canon law, includes church buildings, church property, cemeteries, and property given to the church for the suprt of the yr or for any other pious use. mith vy. Bonhoof, 2 Mich. 115.

539, 1. N. EB. 491.—Errors excepted. A phrase appended to an account stated, in order to excuse slight mistakes or oversights. Error, writ of. See WRIT OF ERnor.

263, 26 Am. Rep. 21; Com. v.. Lafferty, 6 Grat. (Va.) 673; People v. Rouse, 2 Mich.

337, 64 N. E. 680.

502, 8 N. B. 609, 57 Am. Rep. 128: Clements v. Casper, 4 Pac. 472;

294, 31 N. E. 1047, 17 L. R. A. D6—.. Right heir. This term was formerly used, in the case of estates tail, to distinguish thepreferred heir, to whom the estate was limited, from the heirs In general, to whom, on the failure of the preferred heir and his line, the remainder over was usually finally limited. With the, abolition of estates tail, the term has fallen into desuetude, but when still used, in modern law, it has no other meaning than “heir at law.” Brown v. Wadsworth, 168 N. Y. 225. _ E. 250; Ballentine v. Wood, 42 N. J.

416, 16 N. E. 391; Bever v. North, 107

at, 8 N. E. 576; Warford v. Noble (C.

541, 23 N. E. 670; Boggs v. U. S., 10

408; Kelsey v. Murphy, 30 Pa. 341;

22, 38 N. B. 305, 47 Am. St. Rep. 253 Persons are “jointly bound” in a bond or note when both or all must be sued in one action for its enforcement, not either one at the election of the creditor. —Jointly and severally. Persons who bind themselves “jointly and severally” in a bond or note may all be sued together for its enforcement, or the creditor may select any Oneror more as the object of his suit. See Mitchell v. Darricott, 8 Brev. (S. C.) 145; Rice v. Gove, 22

487; Nelson ¥. Brown, 59 Vt. 601, 10 Atl 721. A judgment which cannot be appealed from, which is perfectly conclusive upon the matter adjudicated. Snell v. Cotton Gin Mfg. Co., 24 Pick. (Mass.) 300. A judgment which terminates all litigation on the same rftght. The term “final judgment,” in the judiciary act of 1789, § 25, includes both species of judgments as just defined. 1 Kent, Comm. 316; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 494, 7 L. Ed. 481; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 209, 12 %. Ed. 404. A judgment which is not final is called “interlocutory ;” that is, an interlocutory judgment is one which determines some preliminary or subordinate point or plea, or settles some step, question, or default arising in the progress of the cause, but does not adjudicate the nifimate rights of the parties, or finally put the case out of eourt. Thus, a judgment or order passed upon any provisional or accessory claim or contention is, in general,

201. But compare Bioom v. Richards, 2

26, 19 N. E. 618: Wilson v. Binford, 81

591—Law of the flag. In maritime law. The law of that nation or country whose flag is flown by a particular vessel. A sbipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the master that he intends the law of that flag to regulate such contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him. Ruhstrat v. People, 185 Il], 133, 57 N. B. 41. 49 L. R. A. 181, 76

577; People v. New York, 25 Wend. (N.

185, 6 N. E. 600; Jenkins v. Bolgiano, 58 Md. 420; Solinger v. Jewett, 25 Ind. 479, 87 Am. Dec. 872; Young v. Craig, 2 Bibb

583, 40 Am. Rep. 2698.

247; Robinson vy. Wilkinson, 38 Mich. 299; Odell v. Gray, 15 Mo. 337, 55 Am. Dec. 147.

239, 25 N. E. 826; Gibbs v. People’s Nat.

426, 30 N. E. 214.

527, 45 N. E. 700, 58 Am. St. Rep. 375;

376. ~

49, E. 845. “Probable cause,” in malicious peeing. meang the exiatence of

22. . —

367; Theobold v. Railway Co., 66 Miss. 279, 6 South. 230, 4 L. R. A. 735, 14 Am. St.

261, 5 N. B. 178, 55 Am. Rep. 201.

38, 25 N. E. 137, 9 L. R. A. 323; Mudge v. Gilbert, 43 How. Prac. (N. Y¥.) 221.

185, 36.N. E. 850; Western -Union Tet.

44: Maxwell v. Wright, 160 Ind. 515, 67 N. E. 267.—Venire facias juratores was a judicial writ directed to the sheriff, when issue was joined in an action. commanding him to cause to come to Westminster, on such a day, twelve free and lawful men of his county hy whom the truth of the matter at ise might be hetter known. This writ was abolished by section 104 of the common-law procedure act. 1852. and by section 105 a precept issued by the judges of assize is substituted in its place. The process so substituted is sometimes loosely spoken of as a “venire.” Brown.—Venire facias tot matronas. A writ to summon a jury of matrons to execute the writ de ventre énapiciendo.

L.R. Alla. Indian Law Reports, Allahabad.

L.R. Bomb. Indian Law Reports, Bombay Series.

L.R.Calce, Indian Law Reports,

L. R. Mad. Indian Law Reports, Ma-