was irrelevant. The object of asking the question was not stated to the Court. If asked for the purpose of impeaching the witness by showing that he had made, at other times, statements inconsistent with his testimony, or which indicated hostility toward the defendant, the statement or declaration should have been related to him, with the circumstances of time, place, and persons present; and he should have been asked if he made such statements, and if so, allowed to explain. (Sec. 2052, C. C. P.) As an abstract proposition, the question simply refers to a threat alleged to have been made by the witness to the defendant against a third person about a transaction which, so far as appears by the record, has no connection with any matter involved in the trial; and there is nothing in the question to indicate the place where this alleged threat was made, or whether there were any person or persons present when it was made. There was therefore no error in sustaining the objection to the question.

3. After the cause had been argued and submitted, and the jury had retired to consider their verdict, they returned into Court, and by their foreman handed to the Court an informal verdict, which was entered upon the minutes of the Court. But the Court, seeing that the jury had mistaken an instruction which had been given to them as to the form of their verdict, again read to them the instruction, and directed them to retire and reconsider their verdict. They did so, and soon after returned into Court with a verdict legal in form, which was read and recorded; and the jury, upon being polled, assented to it, and were discharged.

It is the duty of a Court to look after the form and substance of a verdict, so as to prevent a doubtful or insufficient finding from passing into the records of the Court. For that purpose the Court can, at any time while the jury is before it and under its control, see that it is amended in form so as to meet the requirements of the law. The informality in the case in hand was in a mere matter of form, which the Court of its own motion might have ordered to be corrected instead of directing the jury to retire for that purpose; but in doing this there was no error.

4. Defendant relied on his motion for a new trial upon no other errors than those which have been presented to this Court on the appeal; and as there was no error in denying the motion for a new trial, the judgment and order must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

We concur: McKinstry, J., Ross, J.

DEPARTMENT No. 2.

[Filed September 3, 1880.]
No. 6756.

JACKSON LEWIS, PETITIONER,

VS.

COUNTY COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

INSOLVENT LAWS-U. S. BANKRUPT ACT. A State bankrupt law is not repealed by the passage of a Federal bankrupt law; its operation is suspended.

Petition for writ of prohibition from Santa Clara County. Houghton & Reynolds, for petitioner.

F. E. Spencer, for respondents.

MYRICK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:

'An alternate writ of prohibition was directed to the then County Court of Santa Barbara County to prevent it from proceeding further in an insolvency matter under the Act of March 31, 1876. The claims of the two petitioning creditors accrued after the passage of the State bankrupt law, and before the repeal of the Federal bankrupt law; and the petitioner in this case claims that the Act of the Legislature of this State, having been passed while the Federal law was in existence, was not only inoperative during the existence of the Federal law, but is also inoperative after the repeal of the Federal law as to any claims arising before such repeal. A State bankrupt law is not repealed by the passage of a Federal bankrupt law; its operation is suspended. This subject was considered in Boedfield vs. Read, opinion filed July 20, 1880; and the principles stated in that opinion, as well as the reason of the case, seem to us to lead inevitably to the conclusion that the existence of a Federal law does not prevent the passage of a State law; it merely postpones its operation; and that upon the repeal of the Federal law, the State law being in existence becomes operative as well in regard to debts arising after the passage of the State law, before the repeal of the Federal law, as in regard to those arising after the repeal. (Damon's Appeal, Reporter, Aug. 4, 1880, Vol. 5, p. 180.) Writ discharged.

We concur: Sharpstein, J., Thornton, J.

IN BANK.

[Filed September 15, 1880.]
No. 6678.

R. FITZ, APPELLANT, VS. E. BYNUM, RESPONDENT. Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.

J. C. Ball and J. W. Armstrong, for appellant.

D. M. Delmas, for respondent.

By the Court:

This case was heard in Department 2 of this Court, and opinion filed August 18, 1880. Application is made that the case be heard by the Court in Bank. In addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the Department, the transcript shows that the defendant in his answer alleged that the payee of the note in suit induced defendant to execute the note by fraudulent and false representations as to the value of the mine and its stock, and that the representations were made for the purpose of cheating and defrauding defendant; that he represented the mine and its stock to be of great value, and that $10,000 worth of ore was on the dump; whereas, in truth and in fact, the stock and mine were of no value. There was evidence given by the parties relating to this issue; the evidence was conflicting; the Court properly instructed the jury regarding it, and the verdict is conclusive.

Hearing in Bank denied.

DEPARTMENT No. 1.

[Filed August 26, 1880.]
No. 6806.

C. E. GREEN, RESPONDENT, Vs. J. CAMPBELL, APPELLANT.

(See page 162 of this journal.)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.

Mc Kune & Welty, for respondent.

Milton Andros and Charles Page, for appellant.

By the Court:

Upon the authority of Hayes vs. Campbell, No. 6807, judgment reversed, and cause remanded to the Superior Court of Sacramento County for a new trial.

Legal Facetiæ.

"I SHALL find another channel for my article," said the author of a rejected contribution. That's right," was the answer of the courteous magazine editor. "The British Channel would be an excellent place for it."

PRISONER, I now advise you that, instead of relying upon a new trial, or the intervention of friends, or the interposition of the Executive, you go to the solitude of your cell, and take and read that Holy Book, wherein you will learn to rely upon Him who said: "Come unto me, all ye that are heavy laden, and I will— do the best I can for you.' His Honor, perceiving a smile spreading over the faces of his listeners, remarked, "or words to that effect."

"Received from

THE following document was drawn up by a lawyer of Joliet, Ill., and signed by the husband: $10, in consideration of which I hereby renounce all right and title to my lawful wife; and from this day henceforth she is the charge of the said and forfeits all claim on me for support.

This is probably the style of divorce obtained by the adverments, "Divorces in any State obtained promptly and without publicity."

THE WRONG LEG.-There was an eminent sergeant-at-law some years ago who had a cork leg that was a triumph of artistic deception. None but his intimates knew for certain which was the sham limb. A wild young wag of the "outer bar," who knew the sergeant pretty well, once thought to utilize his knowledge of the sergeant's secret to take in a green, newly-fledged young barrister. The sergeant was addressing a special jury at Westminster in his usual earnest and vehement style, and the wag whispered to his neighbor: "You see how hot old Buzfuz is over his case; I'll bet you a sovereign I'll run this pin into his leg up to the head, and he'll never notice it, he's so absorbed in his case. He's a most extraordinary man that way." This was more than the greenhorn could swallow, so he took the bet. The wag took a large pin from his waistcoat, and leaning forward drove it up to the head in the sergeant's leg. A yell that froze the blood of all who heard it, that made the hair of the jury stand on end and caused the Judge's wig to fall off, ran through the Court. "By Jove! it's the wrong leg, and I've lost my money!" exclaimed the dismayed and conscience stricken wag, quite regardless of the pain he had inflicted on the sergeant.

Pacific Coast Law Journal.

VOL. VI.

OCTOBER 9, 1880.

No. 7.

Current Topics.

THE United States Supreme Court has adopted the following rule in regard to briefs:

"All records and arguments printed for the use of the Court must be in such form and size that they can be conveniently cut and bound, so as to make an ordinary octavo volume. After the first day of October, 1880, the Clerk will not receive or file records or arguments intended for distribution to the Judges that do not conform to the requirements of this rule."

The requisite size is 9x5 inches.

IN Connecticut, next October, a proposed constitutional amendment will be submitted to the people, which declares that the Judges of the Supreme and Superor Courts shall be appointed by the General Assemby upon the nomination of the Governor.

Georgia and Iowa have passed statutes providing for the appointment of Commissioners of Immigration. The Georgia statute is the better. It provides for the dissemination of correct information as to the soil, climate, productions, and resources of the State. It directs the Commissioner to arrange special rates of transportation for immigrants, and to keep in his office a registry of lands for sale, and of persons who desire to purchase lands, or to procure employees or employment. The same State has also enacted a usury law, fixing the legal rate of interest at eight per cent., and declaring that any person exacting a higher rate shall forfeit all interest.

New Hampshire has taken action upon the vexed question of taxation of church property, and hereafter all churches in that State valued at more than ten thousand dollars must pay taxes upon the excess of their valuation over that sum.