NOTES OF RECENT CASES killing, unless the body of the supposed victim had been found. Illustrations of this rule carried to its last extreme, may be found in Hindmarsh's Case, 2 Leach, C. C. 571; Regina v. Hopkins, 8 C. & P. 591 and in the leading American case of Ruloff v. People, 18 N. Y. 179. The case at Bar can scarcely be regarded as a direct holding that the corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as there was some direct evidence, although it was so meager that its probative force was scarcely greater than that of cogent circumstances. The court, however, goes to the extent of saying that the death of the person alleged to have been killed must be established by direct testimony or presumtive evidence of the most irresistible kind. Defendant was indicted for the murder of two women, the crime appearing to have been com mitted, if at all, in the early part of February, 1900. Neither of the women were seen after that time and an investigation of defendant's premises about four years later resulted in the discovery of an excavation in which were buried a lot of gunny sacks which had been soaked with some liquid which experts testified was human blood, and two tufts of hair which persons, acquainted with the missing women, testified belonged to them. There was considerable circumstantial evidence pointing to defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, if one was committed, and it was held that the evidence referred to was sufficient proof of the corpus delicti to justify a conviction. INSURANCE. (FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO EX AMINATION AFTER Loss — FLIGHT TO AVOID ARREST) SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT. In Pearlstine v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 49 Southeastern Reporter, 4, a rather peculiar reason is advanced for failure of insured to submit him self to examination as to his loss, at the demand of the insurer, according to the terms of the policy. The policy contained an agreement by insured to submit to examination under oath by any person named by the company and subscribe to the same. At the time of, or immediately after the loss, insured, having killed a man, was a fugi tive from justice, and consequently failed to sub mit himself for examination. In deciding that this was an insufficient excuse, the court admits, that, if circumstances arose without fault of insured, which made it practically impossible for him to appear for examination, his failure would be excused, but holds that his unlawful flight from legal process cannot be rewarded by allowing him to recover the benefit of a contract without performance of its obligations.
505
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. (UNLAWFUL RE STRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES — COMBINATION OF MEAT DEALERS) U. S. SUPREME COURT. Act July 2, 1890 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200), protecting trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies, is violated by a com bination of a dominant proportion of dealers in fresh meat throughout the United States not to bid against each other in the live stock markets of different states, to bid up prices for a few days in order to induce shipments to the stock yards, to fix selling prices, and to that end to restrict shipments of meat when necessary, to establish a uniform rule of credit to dealers, and to keep a black list, to make uniform and improper charges for cartage, and to secure less than lawful freight rates to the exclusion of competitors. Swift & Co. v. United States, 25 Supreme Court Reporter, 276. The contention of chief importance seems to be that it is not sufficiently shown that the acts set forth constitute commerce among the states, but this is met by the statement that commerce among the states is not a techincal legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business, and that when cattle are sent for sale from a place in one state, with the expectation that they will end their transit after purchase in another, and when, in effect, they do so, with only the interruption necessary to find a purchaser at the stock yards, and when this is a typical, constantly recurring course, the current thus existing is a current of commerce among the states, and the purchase of the cattle is a part and incident of such commerce. MARRIAGE. (ANNULMENT — RULES OP CHURCH) NEW JERSEY COURT OP CHANCERY. Misrepresentations inducing marriage as a cause for annulment of a marriage contract are briefly considered in Boehs v. Hanger, 59 Atlantic Reporter, 904. Complainant sought a decree annulling the marriage between herself and her husband, alleging in substance, that she was a member of a church, one of the tenets of which was, that a marriage cannot be dissolved except by the death of one of the contracting parties, and that a marriage with a divorced person, the other party to the 'divorce being yet living, is invalid and -cohabitation therein a sin. It was further alleged that defendant represented that he had never been married, when in fact he had been divorced, and his divorced wife was still living. Citing the rule laid down in Carris v. Carris, 24 N. J. Eq. 516 and Crane v. Crane, 62 N. J. Eq. 21, 49 Atl. 724, that the marriage relation will be annulled for fraud only, when the
