Volume 49 — Washington Reports

, entered November 1, 1907, granting a writ of mandamus to compel the registration of the naipes of certain qualified electors of a municipality.

, entered April 15, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action for damages for the death of a fireman employed upon a logging train.

, entered May 11, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for the possession of real estate.

, entered September 14, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

, entered February 8, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on a contract of employment.

<p>Libel and Slander — Trial—Instructions—Assumptions — Comment on Pacts. An instruction in an action for slander upon the subject of justification, “if the jury should find that the defendant was provoked to speak the slanderous words,” to which the court added that it was based “on the assumption that you find the words were uttered,” is not objectionable as assuming that the words were uttered, or as an unlawful comment on the facts.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Issues Kaised by Evidence. It is not error to instruct upon the issues raised by evidence admitted without objection, although the same may not have been raised by the pleadings.</p> <p>Same — Instructions as to Preponderance oe Evidence. An instruction requiring proof of a certain fact by the preponderance of the evidence, and authorizing recovery if such fact is proved to the satisfaction of the jury, is not objectionable as authorizing a recovery upon proof to the jury’s satisfaction without proof by the preponderance of the evidence.</p> <p>Libel and Slander — Damages—Excessive Verdict. A verdict for 5750 for slander by the utterance in a public street in the presence of numerous persons, of words questioning the chastity of a woman is not excessive.</p>

<p>False Pretenses — Information—Sufficiency. An information charging the obtaining of money under false pretenses, by presenting wild cat scalps to a county auditor, when the accused had not killed the wild cats in said county or within a period of three months previous thereto, under Bal. Code, § 7165, is not demurrable and the facts are not inapplicable to the crime charged by reason of Laws of 1905, p. 122, making it a misdemeanor to offer scalps of wild cats that were killed out of the state or prior to the passage of the act; since the information does not show that the wild cats were killed out of the state or prior to the act.</p> <p>Criminal Law — Trial—Instructions—Reasonable Doubt. It is not reversible error, in an instruction as to reasonable doubt, to say that such doubt c'ould only be entertained from the want of evidence to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, when, considered in connection with other instructions, it was incapable of prejudicing the accused.</p>

, entered June 1, 1907, denying a writ of assistance to obtain possession of mortgaged premises sold under foreclosure and claimed by the mortgagors during the period of redemption under a right of homestead therein.

, entered September 21, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for the cancellation of a-deed.

, entered December 16, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, upon overruling a demurrer to the petition, granting a writ of mandamus.

, entered July 16, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merit's before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

, entered July 8, 190T, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a passenger in alighting from a street car.

, entered August 1, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, upon overruling a demurrer to the complaint, in an action to quiet title.

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Whatcom county, Neterer, J., entered January 11, 1907, upon .findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate.

, entered July 5, 1906, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, granting an injunction to compel the removal of obstructions placed upon a navigable lake and to restrain the placing and maintaining of the same thereon.

<p>Elections — Majority — Statutes —Construction — Counties — Township Organization. Const, art. 2, § 4, providing for the establishment of township organization “whenever a majority of the qualified electors of such county voting at a general election shall so determine” does not authorize township organization upon a majority of those voting upon the question, although the legislature so construed the clause in Laws 1895, p. 473, hut only upon a majority of the total votes cast at the election.</p>

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Stevens county, Kennan, J., entered January 12, 1907, awarding to plaintiff the sum of $3,500 as an attorney’s fee, after a trial before the court without a jury.

, entered May 24, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in condemnation proceedings, granting to a railway company the right to establish a crossing over the right of way belonging to another company.

, entered December 14, 1906, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to enjoin the construction of a railway line across lands claimed as a right of way by another railway company.

, entered January 12, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a railway construction employee through the firing of a blast.

, entered May 29, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a minor, a trespasser, while i'iding on a freight train.

, entered May 14, 1907, in favor of the defendants, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title to real property condemned for railway purposes.

, entered June 27, 1907, confirming an assessment roll made by commissioners appointed to assess property specially benefited by local improvements, after a hearing before the court without a jury.

, entered August 12, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a pedestrian through stepping into an- unguarded hole in a street.

Still, J., entered May 20, 1907, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action to enjoin a trespass upon tide lands leased from the state.

, entered June 13, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action impersonal injuries sustained through the negligent maintenance of obstructions upon a sidewalk.

, entered May 23, 1901', upon granting a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s case, dismissing an action for specific performance.

, entered March 18, 1907, upon overruling a demurrer to defendant’s plea of want of jurisdiction, dismissing an action upon a surety bond.

, entered February 11, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by an employee while operating a ripsaw in a sawmill.

, entered June 25, 1907, in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, enjoining the maintenance of a saloon upon premises leased in part by the plaintiffs.

<p>Costs — On Appeal — Dissmissal op Appeal. After appellant has. moved to dismiss his appeal, the respondents cannot move to dismiss, the appeal and recover costs of such motion, although they ask affirmance of the judgment.</p>

, entered September 28, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to rescind a contract of sale.

, entered April 24, 1907, upon sustaining defendants’ motion to dismiss the action at the close of plaintiff’s case, in an action to quiet title.

Application filed in the supreme court March 17, 1908, for a writ of mandate requiring the superior court for Pierce county, Snell, J., to set for hearing a petition praying for the discharge from custody of a defendant acquitted of the charge of murder on the ground of insanity.

, entered August 25, 1906, granting a new trial to the defendant, in an action for the death of a pedestrian struck by defendant’s train.

, entered March 19, 1907, upon sustaining defendant’s motion to strike the affirmative reply, dismissing an action for personal injuries resulting from an assault and battery.

, entered July 1, 1907, upon find-, ings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

<p>Certiorari — Remedy by Appeal — Forcible Entry and Detainer —Appeal—Supersedeas. There is an adequate remedy hy appeal and therefore certiorari will not lie to review an order in an action of unlawful detainer, quashing a writ of restitution for insufficiency of the notice set out in the complaint; since the plaintiff may stand upon the notice and forthwith appeal from the final judgment, securing a supersedeas and review of the order; or may amend the complaint and secure another writ.</p>

, entered May 9, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the •court without a jury, in an action of replevin.

, entered January 9, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action of forcible entry and detainer.

, entered May 29, 1907, upon granting a nonsuit, dismissing an action to recover money paid on a subscription for corporate stock, after a trial before the court and a jury.

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Huneke, J., entered July 3, 1907. Action upon an account assigned to plaintiff by an insolvent corporation, the proceeds of which account were to be applied by the assignee to discharge certain indebtedness of the corporation. The receiver of the corporation intervened, claiming the account and proceeds as trust fund assets of the corporation.

, entered April 27, 1907, granting a mandate to compel a water company to furnish water to a patron, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury.

, entered January 4, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendants, after granting a nonsuit in an action to recover the possession of real property, and to quiet title.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Kennan, J., entered July 2, 1907, upon the pleadings, appointing a receiver upon the involuntary dissolution of a corporation.</p>

, entered January 3, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract. Reversed»

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Rigg, J-, entered June 5, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to recover from a carrier for the loss of goods.</p>

, entered October 10, 1906, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

<p>Master and Servant — Guarding Machinery — Unguarded Set Screw — Contributory Negligence — Questions for Jury. Whether a set screw might have been advantageously guarded under the factory act, negligence in failing to do so, assumed risks and contribu-, tory negligence, are questions for the jury, where it appears that an employee first attempted to apply oil from in front, reaching around a timber, when the pulley threw dust into his eyes, whereupon he passed to a position back of the timber and was caught on an unprotected set screw on the pulley, there being evidence that his usual work was on the floor below, that he had never been there before, and that the set screw might have been advantageously guarded, and the evidence as to his contributory negligence was conflicting.</p> <p>Same — Contributory Negligence — Unsafe Methods — Instructions. It is proper to refuse a requested instruction that a servant is guilty of contributory negligence if he assumes an unsafe method of performing an act, when there were one or more safe methods that he might have adopted, where the evidence shows that he had no knowledge or means of knowledge of the unsafety of the course pursued; since the instruction is too broad.</p> <p>Same — Oiling Machinery in Motion — Custom. An employee is not guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to oil a shaft without stopping the machinery in a shingle mill where it was not customary and he had been instructed not to do so.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions—Requests. Upon refusal to give an instruction because not requested in proper form, it is not prejudicial error to fail to prepare and give another instruction on the same subject.</p> <p>Same. It is not error to refuse an instruction where the point was covered in the general charge.</p>

<p>Certiorari to review a judgment of the superior court for Franklin county, Zent, J., entered February 21, 1908, granting a writ of mandamus upon overruling a demurrer to the application for the writ.</p>

, entered June 10, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, notwithstanding the verdict of a jury rendered in . favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits, in an action upon promissory notes.

, entered November 21, 1906, upon conviction of the crime of petit larceny, after a trial upon an information charging the crime of larceny from the person.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Rigg, J., entered May 28, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.</p>

<p>Courts — Decisions—Federal Questions. Whether provisions of an act of Congress constituted conditions subsequent is a Federal question, upon which the decisions of the United States courts are controlling.</p> <p>Public Lands — Grants—Railroad Right of Way — Conditions Subsequent — Forfeiture—Who May Claim. Act of Cong, of June 4, 1898, granting a railroad right of way through the Colville Indian Reservation becomes a grant in praesenti upon the filing and approval of the map of definite location; and the provision in section 5 of the act that the grant shall be forfeited unless grading shall he commenced within six months, and twenty-five miles of railroad be completed within two years,'> is a condition subsequent which can only be taken advantage of by the .government by a judicial proceeding or appropriate legislative action in the nature of “office found.”</p>

, entered September 4, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, upon overruling a demurrer to the complaint, in an action to quiet title.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Poindexter, J., entered June 25, 1907, upon a trial and conviction of the violation of a municipal ordinance relating to disorderly conduct.</p>

, entered December 81, 1906, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action to recover the unearned portion of a license fee upon revocation of a retail liquor license.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Walla. Walla county, Brents, J., entered November 7, 1907, upon a trial and conviction of conducting a game of roulette.</p>

, entered December 9, 1907, at the instance of the defendant, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

<p>Highways — Establishment by Prescription — Evidence—Sdppiciency. Adverse user sufficient to establish a public highway by prescription is not shown, where it appears that the way was first built as a skid road on private property for private logging purposes, and afterwards used as a tram road for logging, and travel over it was similar to that over other logging roads generally regarded as private ways, and on the first claim to a public right, the owners erected gates and notices; since the use was only permissive in its character.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Rigg, J-, entered March 2, 1907, upon overruling a demurrer to the answer, dismissing an action for damages for the destruction of infected fruit.</p>

<p>Taxation — Foreclosure — Summons—Service by Publication — Sufficiency. A summons by publication in a tax foreclosure is so indefinite that the judgment is void, where it fails to state the day upon which the service would be complete, as required by Bal. Code, § 1751, although the date of the first publication was stated.</p> <p>Judgment — Collateral Attack — Grounds — Want of Service. Where it is admitted that none but a void service of a summons by publication was made in a tax foreclosure, the judgment is void and may be attacked in an action to set it aside, although it recited that due service was made.</p>

, entered April 17, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff,. after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action upon a policy of accident insurance.'

, entered August 10, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff, upon the report of a court commissioner, in proceedings supplemental to execution.

<p>Specific Performance — Gifts—Promise to Convey Land — Acceptance by Acting Upon. A letter written to a brother in California asking “if he would be willing to make” his home with the writer in consideration of a deed of her home in Washington, supplemented by another setting forth the serious illness of the donor and urging him to come to her for the purpose of settling up her affairs, and which was accepted by letter as a gift on the conditions named, is a promise to make a gift which will be specifically enforced, when acted upon by the donee, with possession taken, and material changes made in his condition on the faith thereof.</p> <p>Same — Intent of Donor — Evidence. The fact that, after the arrival of the brother, the donor made him a deed of a portion only of the property, and attempted to sell the balance against his protests, would not show that she only intended to promise to give him part of the two lots on which the house was situated, where the entire lots were described in the first offer.</p> <p>Same — Estoppel—Accord and Satisfaction. In such a case, the donee would not be estopped to assert his right to specific performance as to the whole tract, as against the donor’s executor, by the acceptance and recording of a deed of part of the tract, delivered by the executor after the death of the donor, the donee having had no previous knowledge of such deed, and not accepting the same as a full settlement.</p>

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Linn, J., entered April 29, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Joiner, J., entered February 28, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, for $5,000 damages for personal injuries sustained by a passenger in a street car collision.</p>

<p>Actions — Joinder. Under Bal. Code, § 4942, causes of action, upon two distinct contracts may be joined in one action.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Findings. Findings of a trial court which are supported by the evidence will be affirmed where the supreme court is not satisfied that they are erroneous, or that the evidence, in case of conflict, preponderates against them.</p> <p>Interest — Money Paid. In an action to recover money paid by mistake, interest is allowable from the time of demand made for specific amounts.</p> <p>Witnesses — Competency—Transaction with Deceased. In an ' action by an administrator to recover money paid by the deceased upon a settlement, a question as to what transpired at the settlement and all about it, is objectionable, as calling for statements made by the deceased, contrary to Bal. Code, § 5991.</p> <p>Judgments — Rendition—Time eob. A judgment is not void because not rendered within ninety days after the trial, nor does that of itself constitute reversible error.</p> <p>New Trial — Grounds—Discretion. It is discretionary to deny a new trial on the ground that the stenographer had lost his notes, the appellant offering to pay all costs in order to get a correct record.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Skagit county, Joiner, J., entered July 15, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries.</p>

<p>Municipal Corporations — Improvements'—Assessment for Benefits — Limitation—Petition by Owners. Under Laws 1903, p. 121, restricting the city council, in levying assessments for local improvements, to fifty per cent of the assessed value of the property benefited, except where a petition by three-fourths of the owners specifies “not to exceed a certain higher percentage,” the term “percentage” is not to be given a technical meaning restricting the assessment to a fractional part of the assessed value; hut an assessment may be made for two hundred per cent of the value, when petitioned for, if within the constitutional limit of the value of actual benefits conferred.</p> <p>Same — Proceedings—Mode oe Valuation — General Assessment as Basis. Upon a petition for an improvement limiting the levy for benefits to two hundred per cent of the “assessed value,” without specifying that reference was made to the last valuation for general taxation, it is proper to base the levy for benefits upon an assessment made after the petition was filed and before the ordinance was passed, if passed within a reasonable time.</p> <p>Same — Proceedings—Petition oe Owners — Conditions—Effect— Jurisdiction. A condition, expressed in a petition for a local improvement, calling for certain things and providing a lien therefor “so far as the same may he legally made a lien” is not a jurisdictional one, rendering the proceeding nugatory; since if it could not be legally done it was nevertheless the intention of the petitioners that the improvements be made.</p> <p>Same — Contracts —Validity—Bids—Conditions—Effect. Conditions named in proposals for bids upon a contract for a municipal contract, requiring the contractor to excavate for private property owners and to contract with them, do not render the proceeding void unless it can be said as a matter of law that the conditions necessarily increase the cost of the improvement.</p> <p>Same. Where the regrade of streets calls for a cut of fifty feet, requiring abutting property to he sloped hack, and, to be available, to he graded to street level, a condition requiring the contractor to contract with owners to excavate private property at the same price as hid for the street work does not necessarily increase the cost of the improvement to taxpayers, where it is not alleged to do so, as a matter of fact, and therefore does not render the contract void as a matter of law.</p> <p>Samé — Proceedings—Mode of Valuation — Basis. The previous assessment for general taxation controls the jurisdiction of the city to order an improvement, regardless of the fact that part of the property assessed is to be taken for widening the street; since such portion must be paid for when taken.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Sullivan, J., entered April 8, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on a promissory note.</p>

, entered May 15, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court.withput a jury, in an action on a contract of employment.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for What-com county, Neterer, J., entered June 3, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the defendant, in an action on contract.</p>

, entered June 26, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to recover from a carrier for the loss of goods.

, entered June 8, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for trespass.

, entered June 17, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

, entered May 3, 1907, denying a writ of mandate to compel the commissioners of a county to repair a highway appropriated by a railroad for right of way purposes.

, entered May 13, 1907, after a hearing on the merits, granting a petition to condemn a right of way through land owned by another railway company.

<p>Application for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the superior court for Clarke county, McCredie, J., entered January 21, 1908, condemning land for county road purposes.</p>

<p>Logs and Logging — Liens—Agent of Owner — Statutes'—Construction. A person getting out logs and piling under a contract with the owner is an agent of the owner, within the meaning of Bal. Code, § 5930, giving a lien thereon in favor of certain persons rendering services at the instance of the owner or his agent.</p> <p>Same — Lien—Services Included. The lien given by Bal. Code, S 5930, in favor of every person performing labor or assisting in obtaining timber products, extends to 'hauling logs and piles before being worked into a finished product, and is not restricted to railroads and steamboats by the clause giving such carriers liens for hauling or towing.</p>

Appeal- from a judgment of the superior court for King •county, Griffin, J., entered December 12, 1907, upon granting a nonsuit in an action for personal injuries, after a trial before the court and a jury.

, entered May 14, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Lincoln county, Warren, J., entered March 20, 1907, upon an agreed statement of facts, granting an injunction to prevent a city and its officers from compromising a judgment entered in favor of a municipality.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Griffin, J., entered June 7, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action of ejectment.</p>

, entered March 7, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendants, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien.

, entered November 15, 1901, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to quiet title.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Irwin, J., entered October 28, 1907, in favor of the defendant, dismissing a criminal charge pending an appeal from a judgment of conviction.</p>

, entered October 29, 1907, dismissing an action to enjoin a city clerk from incurring expense at a primary election, after a trial on the merits before the court.

, entered October 28, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose an employee’s lien.

, entered August 1, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to enforce the specific performance of a contract to sell real estate.

Application filed in the supreme court December 27, 1907, for a writ of habeas corpus to discharge from custody a defendant charged with the crime of keeping a theater open on Sunday.

<p>Appeal — Decisions Review able — Amount in Controversy. An appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of a city warrant for the sum of $140.75 will he dismissed for the reason that the original amount in controversy is not within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court.</p>

<p>Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Skagit county, Joiner, J., entered June 26, 1907, upon findings by the court, after a trial on the merits without a jury, establishing the right to the use of waters appropriated for irrigation purposes, but denying plaintiff judgment for damages.</p>

, entered May 18, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action brought by a stockholder to enjoin the union and consolidation of two corporations.

<p>Courts — Jurisdiction—Appellate Courts — Divorce — Alimony Pending Appeal. The supreme court has original jurisdiction to entertain an application for temporary • alimony, attorney’s fees and suit money pending an appeal from a judgment of divorce in favor of a wife, under the statutes requiring a trial ele novo on appeal and declaring that the supreme court shall be possessed of the whole case as fully as the trial court was, and under Const, art. 4, § 4, giving the supreme court power to issue all writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of appellate and revisory jurisdiction (Mount, Rudkin, and Fullerton, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Divorce — Alimony—Suit Money — Pending Appeal. A proper case for the allowance of suit money and alimony pending appeal is shown where the wife secured a judgment of divorce, with alimony, which was superseded on the husband's appeal from the allowance of alimony, and the wife was without means-of support for herself and child.</p> <p>Divorce — Suit Money Pending Appeal. In fixing suit money and attorney’s fees pending appeal in a divorce case, the supreme court will grant only a fair amount for necessary expenses, leaving the ultimate amount of the attorney’s fees to the final adjudication of the case.</p> <p>Ne Exeat — Grounds—Showing—Suiticiency—Divorce. A writ of ne exeat preventing an appellant in a divorce case from leaving the state pending the appeal will not be granted, in the absence of a sufficient showing that he is about to do so, and where he has given a supersedeas bond on appeal, and much of the property involved is real estate which cannot be conveyed without consent of the wife.</p>

Application filed in the supreme court April 18, 1908, for an order directing the allowance of suit money, attorney’s fees, and alimony, pending an appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Skagit county, Joiner, J., entered March 18, 1908, granting to the plaintiff a divorce.

Cross-appeals from a judgment of the superior court for Thurston county, Linn, J., entered October 15, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action to recover money lost at gambling.-

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Reid, J., entered September 25, 1907, granting plaintiff’s motion for nonsuit, in an action for personal injuries.</p>

, entered July 15, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to enjoin the defendants from trespassing and committing waste upon real property -

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Irwin, J., entered December 2, 1907, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action upon warrants.</p>

<p>Trial — Conduct—Reopening—Discretion. It is discretionary to reopen a case for further evidence upon a showing that it was unknown to counsel, where the opposite party is given an opportunity to rebut the same.</p> <p>Dedication — Parks—Oral Dedication — Evidence — Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence of an oral dedication .of a park where the owners platted adjoining lands into lots and blocks, giving out blue prints showing the park, and selling lots on representations that the same abutted on the park, and permitted general use of the same as a public park for many years.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Clifford, J., entered April 18, 1908, dismissing an action for an injunction, after a trial before the court without a jury.</p>

, entered April 25, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action upon a contractor’s surety bond.

, entered February 17, 1908, upon findings in favor of the plaintiif, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose a local assessment lien.

<p>Husband and Wife — Community Property' — Sale by Husband-?— Assent of Wife- — Escrows—Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action to compel the specific performance of an escrow agreement to deliver a deed for community lands, the fact that the wife called and signed the deed while in escrow is sufficient evidence that she knew of and assented to the terms of the sale.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute of — Sale of Land — Memorandum—Escrows— Evidence of Condition. The conditions upon which a deed is delivered in escrow need not be evidenced by a written memorandum in order to satisfy the statute of frauds relative to the sale of lands; but may be shown partly by writing and partly by parol.</p> <p>Escrows — Legality—Conditions Resting in Parol — Evidence— Sufficiency — Specific Performance. There is a legal escrow agreement that may be specifically enforced, where the deed was deposited in escrow in a bank to be subsequently executed by the wife, which was done, and at the same time money, notes and warrants were likewise deposited by the grantee, the warrants to be endorsed by one who was temporarily absent, who endorsed the same within a reasonable time, although the papers were only accompanied by an unsigned memorandum, as of a “special deposit,” reciting that the deed was to be delivered on payment of the deposited consideration, the other conditions of the escrow resting on parol.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Rigg, J., entered July 25, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for slander.</p>

, entered April 29, 1907, in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to cancel leases and to recover personal property obtained thereunder.

, entered July 23, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury, rendered in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits, in an action for malpractice.

, entered January 9, 1908, upon findings in favor of the defendants, dismissing an action to set aside a tax sale and deed, after a trial before the court without a jury.

, entered April 15, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

, entered October 2, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, dismissing an action to recover an interest in partnership profits.

, entered May 20, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to declare a contract a mortgage and to foreclose the same.

, entered November 7, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits in an action for personal injuries.

, entered July 30, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiffs, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for an injunction and for damages.

, entered November 20, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action for personal injuries.

, entered December 2, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to foreclose mechanics’ liens.

, entered August 3, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action for breach of covenant against incumbrances.

, entered December 26, 1907, in favor of defendant, granting defendant’s motion to vacate a tax foreclosure judgment and tax sale after overruling special objections and a hearing upon affidavits.

, entered October 1, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries.

, entered September 14, 1907, upon granting a nonsuit, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, dismissing an action for specific performance.

, entered December 5, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action for personal injuries.

, entered December 7, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff and interveners upon sustaining demurrers to the answer, in an action brought by taxpayers of a county to enjoin the issuance of bonds in aid of public improvements.

, entered August 1, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages for ejecting a passenger from a railway train.

, entered December 2, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on a liability incurred under a surety bond.

, entered December 31, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

, entered November £9, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, dismissing an action on contract, after a trial before the court without a jury.

, entered June 17, 1907, granting to plaintiff a new trial, after the verdict of a jury in his favor for one dollar, in an action for personal injuries.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Griffin, J., entered November 30, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gilliam, J., entered October 11, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for unlawful detainer.</p>

<p>Carriers — Passengers—Setting Down Passengers — Evidence— Sufficiency. There is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that a street car step was defective, where the plaintiff, a woman weighing 250 pounds, testified that it sagged down when she stepped upon it, and caught and held the heel of her shoe.</p> <p>Same — Instructions — Contributory Negligence — Comparative Negligence. In an action by a passenger for personal injuries sustained in alighting from a street car, it is proper to instruct that the plaintiff is not required to be absolutely free from any neglect whatever, that that would require extraordinary care, the exercise of ordinary care being sufficient, and that plaintiff may exercise ordinary care although “guilty of slight neglect in the broadest sense of the term”; and the same does not indorse the doctrine of “com parative” negligence.</p>

, entered September 12, 1907, granting a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s case, after a trial before the court and jury, in an action for personal injuries.

, entered December 19, 1907, granting' plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction after a hearing upon affidavits and other, evidence.

, entered April 20, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to recover money paid for corporate stock.

, entered November 23, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury.

, entered October 22, 1907, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a signalman employed in a logging camp.

, entered November 26, 1907, upon findings in favor of the defendant, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Chapman, J., entered February 7, 1908, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action on contract.</p>

, entered November 30, 1907, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action to enforce a trust in real property.