of the state in whioh the oompany wits inoorporated they are property beyond the jurisdiotion of that state. It was further held in that oase that the faot that the bonds were seoured by mortgage upon property situated in Pennsylvania did not make them property within that state, and this for the reason that a mortgage under the laws of Pennsylvania, as here, though in form a oonveyance, is a mere seourity for a debt, and transfers no estate in the mortgaged premises. "It has long been settled," says the supreme oourt in Wilkins v. Elliott, Adm'r, 9 Wall. 740, "and is a prinoiple of universal jurisprudenoe in all civilized nations, that the personal estate of the deoeased is to be regarded, for the purposes of suooession and distribution, wherever situated, as having no other locality than that of his domioile; and if he dies intestate the suooession is governed by the law of the plaoe where he was domiciled at the time of his decease, and not by the conflicting laws of the various places where the property happened at the time to be situated." It follows that the notes and mortgage sued on in this case were assets of the estate of Witte in the state of Ohio, and as such passed to his administrators in that state, who had,. aooording to the ;plain terms of the statute of Kansas, the right to sue upon them "in like manner and under like restriotions as a non-resident may sue." This statute clearly authorizes a foreign exeoutor to sue in this state to recover any debt whioh is assets in his hands. I am not prepared to say t4at it does not authorize suoh an executor or administrator, in the absenoe of administration in this state, to sue in this state upon any debt upon whioh the deceased might have sued at the time of his death; but it is not neoessary in this oase to deoide that point. It is enough for the present to hold that the debt sued for was assets in Ohio, and there passed to oomplainants. Demurrer overruled.
ROBINSON TOBAoao Co. v. PHILIPS and others.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
Where a cause was set down for hearing upon the pleadings OIl defendant's motion, expressly to preclude complainant from introducing evidence which it was its duty, under the rules, to introduce in time to permit defendants to reply, complainants cannot be permitted to introduce exhibits and documents not made by proper reference a portion of the bill.
UNITED STATES V. LOFTIS.
Munday, Evarts fl Adcock and Worth Osgood, for complainant. Banning fl Banning, for defendants. WALLACE, O. J. This cause having been set down for hearing upon the pleadings on motion of the defendants, and because of the complainant's default in taking proofs as required by the rules, the complainant cannot be permitted to introduce exhibits and documents upon such hearing. which are not made by proper reference a pordown the case for hearing upon tion of this bill. The order the pleadings was made expressly to preclude the complainant from introducing evidence which it was its duty, under the rules, to proffer in time to permit the defendants to reply to The bill is dismissed, with costs.
(Di,trict Oourt, D. Oregon. July 11, 1882.)
CRIlIES-POSTING NON·MAILABLE MATTER-WRITING DEFINED.
A sealed letter deposited in the mail, addressed to some one, is not a Writing or publication within the purview of the first clause of section 3893 of the Re· vised Statutes, declaring obscene, etc., books, writings, ete., or .. other publication of an indecent character," non-mailable.
S.um-LETTBR SEALED-NoT WITHIN PROHIBITION.
A sealed letter is not within the prohibition of said section 3893, however indecent or obscene in its contents; but if there is any such delineation or language put upon the envelope containing it, it thereby becomes non-mailable. and the person depositing it in the mail thereby commits a crime.
Information-for Violation of Section 3893 of the Statutes. James F. Watson, for plaintiff. George H. Williams and George Durham, for defendant. DEADY, D. J. The defendant is accused by the information in this case of "the crime of depositing for mailing and delivery in the post. office of the United States a publication of an indecent character, and a letter containing indecent and scurrilous epithets, contrary to section 3893 of the Revised Statutes, committed by knowingly mailing at Rainier, in a sealed envelope, postage paid, and addressed to 'Mr. Joish Way Thayer, Oregon City, Oregon,' a certain obscene and indecent writing and publication" in words and figures as herein set forth. The defendant demurs to the information because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime, and upon the argument thereof made the point that however the act of the defendant may be char-