is no defense that defendant did not' know of the ordinance, or did not know that an order oí the mayor to the city marshal to arrest persons violating it, was meant to embrace defendant's own back yard. Final ly, it is no defense that the fourth of July celebration had been advertised by the citi zens and defendant thought that shooting firecrackers was in keeping with the occa sion. That such an ordinance would tend to stifle the exuberant patriotism of Young America does not seem, strangely enough, to have been relied on as a ground of at tack. FORGERY. (Он WILL DURING TESTATOR'S LIFE TIME.)
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. In Huckaby r. State, 78 Southwestern Reporter, 942, it is held that a will is not an instrument subject to forgery during a lifetime of the purported testator. The hold ing depends on the construction of Penal Code 1895, Arts. 530, 536, 537, which de clare guilty of forgery one who forges an instrument which, if genuine, would "have created, increased, diminished, discharged, or defeated, any pecuniary obligation or would have transferred or in any manner have affected any property whatever;" which defined "pecuniary obligation, as every in strument having money for its object and every obligation for the breach of which a civil action for damages may be brought; and which provide that by an instrument which would "have transferred or in any manner have affected" property, is meant every species of conveyance or undertaking in writing which supposes a right in the person purporting to execute it to dispose of or change the character of property of every kind and which could have such effect when genuine. The case is distinguished from the English rule under which an instru ment to be the subject of forgery must be such as would have some legal efficacy, it" genuine. The court says: "Now, can it be held that the will, if genuine, during the life time of the testator would have the effect, i»
pracscnti, to create or discharge any pecu niary obligation, or to transfer or affect any property whatever? It is essentially ambu latory during the lifetime of the declarant, subject to his revocation at any time, and cannot possibly take effect until his death. Being such an instrument, we hold that it is not the subject of forgery, where the making of the instrument occurs during the life of the testator." INTOXICATING LIQUORS. (SALE ON SUN.DAY— WHAT CONSTITUTES.; TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
In Wallis v. State, 78 Southwestern Re porter 231, it is held a violation of the Sun day liquor law for a saloon keeper to sell beer on Saturday under an agreement to keep it on ice for the purchaser until Sun day, and then on Sunday hand it out to him through a broken glass in the door. The court says that if the saloon keeper could do this in one instance, he could do it in other instances, and if he could make a sufficient number of sales for delivery on the next day, his house might be kept open the entire day to consummate deliveries. An essential part of the business of a saloon keeper is the keeping of his drinks cool, and if he can make sales on Saturday, and keep the goods in his refrigerator for delivery on Sunday, he will be compelled to keep his place open for that purpose, though he can make no sale on Sunday, nor receive any money on that day for goods previously sold. No cases are referred to. LIBEL. (ANONYMOUS ARTICLE — WHAT CONSTI TUTES.) NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.
In Williams v. Smith, 46 Southeastern Reporter 502, the necessity of notice as a preliminary to an action for libel, as required by Pub. Laws, 1901, c. 557, Sec. i, is dis cussed in the light of section 3, which pro vides that section i shall not apply to anony mous communications and publications. The newspaper article on which the suit was
