L R.A

815; or oral statement; Olsen v. Ins. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 371, 32 S. W. 440; or it may be requested by the court; Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. 447, Fed. Cas. No. 11,558. The term is sometimes applied to counsel heard in a cause because interested in a similar one; Ex parte Yeager, 11 Grat (Va.) 050; State v. Rost, 49 La. Ann. 1451, 22 South. 421; and occasionably to strangers suggesting the correction of errors in the proceedings; Year Books 4 Hen. VI. 10; 11 Mod. 137; U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S. 08, 3 Sup. Ct. 1, 27 L. Ed. 857. Leave to file briefs as amicus curiw will be denied when it does not appear that the applicant is interested in any other case that will be affected by the decision and the parties are represented by competent counsel, whose consent has not been secured; Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 191 U. S. 555, 24 Sup. Ct 119, 48 L. Ed. 299; where many cases are cited in the argument. The Attorney General of the United States has appeared in the Supreme Court in The Income Tax Cases, 158 U. S. 001, 15 Sup. Ct 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108; The Corporation Tax Cases, 220 U. S. 107, 31 Sup. Ct. 342, 55 L. Ed. 389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; The Safety Appliance Case, 190 U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. 158, 49 L. Ed. 303, and the Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 32 Sup. Ct 109, 50 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44. In cases where the United States is not a party, but is substantially interested, it is the practice to ask leave to intervene, or to be heard as amicus curiw, or he is heard by leave of court In the Reading Receivership (U. S. C. C. E. D. of Pa., 1893, Dallas, C. J.) certain Union employees petitioned the Court for an order restraining the receivers from discharging the petitioners unless they would dissolve their connections with their Union. The Attorney General, Mr. Olney, sent the Court an argument on behalf of the petitioners. The Court said at bar that, if counsel for the petitioners saw proper to offer it as part of their argument, it would be received. Opposing counsel did not object to it if so offered. Where the question of the constitutionality of the Employers' Liability Act of 1900 was heard, though considering that such a practice in a litigation strictly inter partes with which the United States had no concern, ought not to be encouraged, in the absence of any statute or law authorizing or directing the Attorney General to support by argument in the courts generally the legislation of Congress where the United States is not a party nor its interests involved in any tangible way; Brooks v. Southern Pac. Co., 148 Fed. 986. In Mason v. Ry., 197 Mass. 349, 83 X. B. 871;, 10 L R. A. (N. S.) 27(3, 125 Am. St. Rep. 371, 14 Ann. Cas. 574, on motion of a member of the bar suggesting that the action be dismissed as being virtually brought against the King of England, accompanied by an affidavit establishing that fact, it was held that the action could not be maintained. There was no appearance for defendant. AMITA (Lat). An aunt on the father's side. Amita magna. A great-aunt on the father's side. Amita major. A great-great-aunt on the father's side. Amita maxima. A great-great-greataunt, or a great-great-grandfather's sister. Calvinus, Lex. A Ml TIN US. The child of a brother or sister; a cousin; one who has the same grandfather, but different father and mother. Calvinus, Lex. AMITTERE CURIAM (Lat. to lose court). To be excluded from the right to attend court. Stat. Westm. 2, c. 44.