right to produce one of the best; and so the process might be continued until the entire lot of cheese had been brought into the court-room. In all cases of this kind a large discretion must be confided to the trial court as to exhibitions of articles of a bulky nature before the jury, and I do not think that dis cretion was abused in this particular matter in question." And on the trial of an indict ment for carrying on a boxing-match, it was held no error to exclude the gloves offered in evidence (State v. Burnham, 56 Vt. 445; s. c. 48 Am. Rep. 801), the court saying that they furnished no criterion of the character or manner of the contest. In an action for breach of warranty of a watch, the court may refuse to compel the plaintiff to produce it for inspection, although he testifies that he has it in his pocket (Hunter v. Allen, 35 Barb. 42). On an indictment for burglary the bur glar's tools may be inspected (People v. Larned, 7 N. Y. 445). So of surgical tools and a speculum chair on a trial for abortion (Com. v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69). So of cloth ing found on the deceased, in a murder trial (Gardiner v. People, 6 Parker Cr. 157), even if blood-stained (People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 64), in order to show the position of the slayer (King v. State, 13 Tex. Ct. App. 277). So of a valise, supposed to have con tained weights fastened to the body of a per son supposed to have been murdered by drowning (Com. v. Costley, 118 Mass, i); and a wallet and bank-notes stolen from the person (Com. v. Burke, 12 Allen, 182); and decanters, jugs, etc., in a liquor case (Com. v. Blood, 11 Gray); and a piece of burnt plank in arson (Com. v. Betton, 5 Cush. 427); and bullets from the body of the murdered de ceased (Moon г'. State, 68 Ga. 687), the court observing, " they were the voiceless yet nevertheless significant evidences of the in tent that. prompted the slayer when he fired the fatal shot " (!). Also the pistol and car tridges in a murder case (Wynne v. State, 56 Ga. 113). But in an action of breach of promise of
marriage the plaintiff's possession and pro duction of the defendant's signet-ring is no evidence (Weideman v. Walpole, Eng. Ct. App. July, 1891). Kay, J., said: " With re spect to the ring, it is, to my mind, impossible to treat the possession by the plaintiff of the defendant's signet-ring as corroboration of the promise. A man does not usually give his signet-ring in such cases." Possibly it might be different in the case of a weddingring on a question of marriage. ANIMALS. In Line v. Taylor, 3 Fost. & Fin. 731, an action for damages by the bite of a dog alleged to be fierce and mischievous, the dog was allowed to be brought into court by his keeper, led with a chain; and the jury in spected him, and gave a verdict for the defendant. In the Crewe County Court, in Powell r. Parker, a fox terrier was in dispute. The dog was brought into court; and as the evi dence was conflicting, his honor toward the end of the case had the animal placed be side him on the bench, and the plaintiff went to the far end of the court and called out, "Sam, Sam." No sooner did it hear the voice than it found its way through a crowded court to the plaintiff, and began to gambol around him. The defendant had described the dog as partly deaf. The judge said he believed the dog belonged to the plaintiff, and gave a decision accordingly. In Thurman v. Bertram, at nisi prius, be fore Baron Pollock, an action brought by a young lady to recover damages for personal injuries received through the alleged negli gence of the defendant's servants, it appeared that she had gone in a wagonette to the Alexandra Palace, where the Nubian en campment, with camels, elephants, etc., was then attracting crowds; and at the conclu sion of the performance a certain quadruped, to wit, a baby-elephant, came out with his keeper, and frightened the plaintiff's pony. The pony bolted, and the plaintiff was thrown out of the wagonette, and fractured her
