290 ^^^ VARD LA W RB VIE IV.
premiums that they may insure their interest in his life; such gift of annual pre- miums to his wife and children, not materially reducing the creditors* chance of recovering their debts, is not in fraud of creditors, unless there be actual fraud or an unreasonable provision. An insolvent husband has a right to make rea- sonable expenditures for the support of his wife and children while he is living; by analogy he has a right to make a reasonable outlay to secure their mainten- ance after his death.
Highways — Dedication. — A grantor of land described the premises in . his deed to defendant as bounded on certain streets. There were no streets at the place designated, but only unenclosed strips of land belonging to the grantor, which the public used as streets for more than five years subsequent to the grant, //^/e/, a complete dedication and acceptance of the streets. Cify of Eureka v. Cro^n, 19 Pac. Rep. 485 (Cal.).
Highways — Right of Abutters to Light and Air — Use of Street BY Railroad. — Held^ that appropriating a public street to the construction and operation of an ordinary commercial rai&oad upon it, is not a proper street use; that it is an interference with a lot-owner's easement to light and air, which amounts to a taking of his property within the meaning of the Constitution; and that the lot-owner may recover whatever damages are thus caused to his lot. Adams y, Chicago^ B, d- N. R. Co,, 39 N. W. Rep. 629 (Minn.).
Insurance, Fire — Conditions against Incendiarism. — Plaintiff in sured his premises in the defendant company, a condition in the policy providing that it should not cover any loss *< occasioned by or in consequence of incendiar- ism." The owner of the adjoining premises feloniously set fire to his house, and the fire spreading burned the plaintiff's premises. Held, that the plaintiff could not recover on the policy. ** The word * incendiarism,' as used in the condition in question, . . . includes any act of incendiarism wherever committed, which directly causes the loss or damage sued for." Walker v. London & Prov. F, Ins. Co,^ Irish Exch. Div., Nov. 7, 1888; reported in 38 Alb. L. J. 471,
Larceny — Obtaining Possession by False Pretence. — Defendant ordered an overcoat and pantaloons of a tailor. Afterwards, in the absence of the tailor, at the request of defendant, an employee gave the garments to defend- ant and accompanied him to his room to receive the pay for them. At the foot of a flight of stairs defendant asked the employee to wait for him while he went up to get his key, and disappeared, but did nut return. Held, that he was guilty of larceny. State v. Hall, 36 Fed. Rep. 107 (Iowa).
Malpractice — Clairvoyants. — In an action against a clairvoyant physician for malpractice, the court was asked to charge, that if at the time defendant was called to treat the plaintiff, both parties understood that he would treat him according to the approved practice of clairvoyant physicians, and that he did so treat him with the ordinary skill and knowledge of the clairvoyant system, plaintiff could not recover. Held, that the request to charge was properly refused. Instead of the words **with the ordinary skill and knowledge of the clairvoyant system," the instructions should have read, ««with the ordinary skill and knowledge of physicians in good standing practising in that vicinity." One who holds himself out as a healer of diseases must, no matter to what particular school or system he belongs, be held to the duty of reasonable skill, in the light of the present state of medical science. Nelson v. Harrington^ 40 N. W. Rep. 228 (Wis.).
Marriage and Divorce — Judicial Separation cannot be granted to Party guilty of Adultery. — Where, on a petition by a wife for a dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and adultery, the husband, in a cross-peti- tion, charged the wife with adultery, and all the mutual charges were sustained by the evidence, held, that as the wife had been guilty of adultery, the court could not grant her a decree of judicial separation. Otway v. Otway, Court of Ap- peal (Eng.), May 8, 1888; noted in 85 Law Times, 27, and Weekly Notes, 1888, p. 117.
Drummond s, Drummond, 30 L. T. 117, P. & M., approved; Otway v. Otway, 13 Prob. Div. 12, reversed.
Negugence — Barb Licensee. — Acts done by the owner of fixed property on his premises, which would be actionable negligence if done on the highway, do not necessarily put him under liability to bare licensees, whom he had no reason to know were on the premises. Thus, although a runaway horse on the highway