S. 507. See, contra, In re Fattosini's Estate (1900), 67 N. Y. S. 1119; In re Lobrasciano's Estate (1902), 77 N. Y. S. 1040; McEvoy v. Wyman (1906), 191 Mass. 276; In re Silvetti's Estate (1907), 122 N. Y. S. 400; Carpigiani v. Hall (1911), 172 Ala. 287; In re Scutella's Estate (1911), 129 N. Y. S. 20. See also under Denmark, In re Peterson's Will (1906), 101 N. Y. S. 285; under Italy, In re Davenport (1904), 89 N. Y. S. 537, and In re Bristow (1909), 118 N. Y. S. 686.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

Treaty of Commerce and Navigation Concluded August 27,

1829.

Art. V. See Art. II of the treaty with Sweden and Norway of April 3, 1783.

Extradition Convention Concluded July 3, 1856.

Under a warrant issued by a commissioner of the United States circuit court, southern district of New York, the prisoner was brought before that court from the State of New Jersey, for examination in a proceeding to extradite him to Austria, upon a charge of embezzlement of public funds. The charge not being sustained, the prisoner was discharged, but, upon leaving the commissioner's room, was arrested by the sheriff under an order of arrest in a civil suit in the State court to recover the same funds. Both proceedings were promoted and prosecuted by the same agents and attorneys. Held, that the case fell within the general principles announced in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, and In re Reinitz, 39 Fed. 204, and that the prisoner was entitled to immunity from arrest until the lapse of a reasonable time to return to New Jersey whence he had been brought. One day was allowed for that purpose. In re Baruch (1890), 41 Fed. 472.

Art. I. The term "forgery" as used in the convention should have, so far as this government is concerned, its commonlaw definition, which includes forgery of commercial paper, though the crime of forgery, as known to the law of AustriaHungary, may comprehend only the falsification of public obligations, and though the crime of forging commercial paper, charged against the prisoner, may there be classified

as "fraud by means of forgery." In re Adutt (1893), 55 Fed. 376.

Consular Convention Concluded July 11, 1870. Art. VIII. Under the provision, that consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents of the two countries, in the exercise of their duties, may apply to the authorities within their district for the protection of the rights of their countrymen, the imperial and royal consul of Austria-Hungary is entitled to maintain a suit in the Federal courts to restrain a local beneficial association from using the name of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor as a part of its corporate name and his portrait as a part of its advertising literature for the false and fraudulent purpose of inducing subjects of the Emperor, resident in the United States, to believe that the association is conducted under the customs of their home country and that their Emperor is identified with and a patron of it. Von Thodorovich v. Franz Josef Beneficial Ass'n. (1907), 154 Fed. 911.

Art. XV. Quære: Whether the most-favored-nation clause carries the benefit of a provision of a consular convention between the United States and another country, conferring upon the consular representatives of the parties thereto the right to administer upon the estates of their deceased nationals. Austro-Hungarian Consul v. Westphal (1912), 120 Minn. 122. See Sweden, Art. XIV of the treaty of June 1, 1910.

The most-favored-nation clause of the treaty gives to a consul of Austria-Hungary the right to administer on the estate of a countryman dying intestate in the United States, that right having been granted by treaty to consuls of Paraguay and Sweden. In re Jarema's Estate (1912), 137 N. Y. S. 176. See, however, In re Estate of D'Adamo (1914), 212 N. Y. 214, under Art. XIV of the treaty with Sweden of June 1, 1910.

Trade-mark Convention Concluded November 25, 1871. Art. I. A word having become public property in Hungary, it also became, under the treaty, public property in the United States. Having once become public property in the United States, a subsequent change in the law of Hungary, in this particular, does not affect the case. The right to individual

appropriation once lost is gone forever. Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. (1900), 179 U. S. 19.

The provision in the convention with Austria, that if a trade-mark has become public property in the country of origin it shall be equally free in the territory of the other contracting party, does not prevent the appropriation in this country, by prior use here, of a word which is not the subject of appropriation under the laws of Austria. J. & P. Baltz Brewing Co. v. Kaiserbrauerei, Beck & Co. (1896), 74 Fed.

222.

BELGIUM.

Extradition Convention Concluded March 19, 1874. Art. III. It is expressly provided that the provisions of the convention shall not apply to any crimes, except those of murder and arson, committed prior to the date of the convention. The convention was signed March 19, 1874, and the ratifications were exchanged April 30, 1874. It was not to take effect until twenty days after the exchange of ratifications. Held, that a crime committed in Belgium on May 1, 1874, was covered by the convention. In re Vandervelpen (1877), 14 Blatchf. 137.

Art. VI. This article expressly provides for requisition on the part of the government applying, and consent of the government applied to. It is not necessary that the warrant on such requisition be issued by the President. It is sufficient if it issues from the Department of State under its official seal. In foreign relations, and executive acts imposed by treaty stipulations, the President acts through that Department. Where the complaint charges the crime of forgery as having been committed on a certain day, in that "one wilfully &c., uttered and put in circulation forged or counterfeit papers, or obligations, or other titles, or instruments of credits," without specifying the kind of obligations forged, or the character of the papers, or the nature of titles, &c., it is defective at common law, does not fairly inform accused of the charge, and does not show probable cause for arrest. Ex parte Van Hoven (1876), 4 Dill. 411.

See as to the construction of the statutes for the extradition of criminals and their application under this convention, In re Stupp (1875), 12 Blatchf. 501.

Consular Convention Concluded March 9, 1880.

Art. XI. The provision conferring power on Belgian consuls in the United States to take cognizance of differences between the captains, officers and crews of Belgian merchant vessels, and providing that the local authorities shall not interfere except when a disorder arises of such a nature as to disturb the tranquility and public order on shore or in the port, or when a person of this country or not belonging to the crew shall be concerned therein, does not deprive the local authorities of jurisdiction over a case of felonious homicide committed on board a Belgian merchant vessel in a port of the United States, by one Belgian upon the person of another Belgian, both belonging to the crew of the vessel. Wildenhus's Case (1887), 120 U. S. 1.

Art. XV. The provision in the treaty with Belgium, conferring on the delegate appointed by the Belgium consul authority to represent absent or minor heirs, is within the treaty-making power and must prevail if in conflict with a State statute. Succession of Rabasse (1895), 47 La. Ann. 1452.

BRAZIL.

Claims Convention Concluded January 27, 1849. Assignment of claim held to be valid. Lewis v. Bell (1854), 17 How. 616.

CHILE.

Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce, and Navigation Concluded May 16, 1832.

Art. XXV. Under the most-favored-nation clause of this article, the same immunity from compulsory attendance in court as witnesses as enjoyed by French consuls under the treaty with France of February 23, 1853, was claimed in United States v. Trumbull (1891), 48 Fed. 94; but the court found other grounds on which to base its decision.

CHINA.

Treaty of Peace, Amity, and Commerce Concluded July 3, 1844.

Art. XXI. Under this treaty, and the act of Congress carrying it into effect, the United States commissioner and consuls

constitute a judiciary for the government of the citizens of the United States in China, and are governed by the law of nations, the laws of the United States, the common law, and the decrees and regulations of the commissioner. An alien friend may sue an American in the consular courts in China established under this treaty. Forbes v. Scannell (1859), 13 Cal. 242.

Claims Convention Concluded November 8, 1858.

Where a demand was made by the government of the United States upon China for redress of certain specific injuries to American citizens, and the Chinese government paid a gross sum in satisfaction of all claims of American citizens, it must be held in a suit to recover a portion of that fund that China recognized her liability for the acts complained of. Where it appears that the government of the United States formerly asserted with knowledge of the facts certain claims to be valid, and demanded reparation for them, it will be held that, as between the claimants and the government of the United States, the question was settled that such claims constituted legitimate claims against China. Hubbell et al. v. United States (1879), 15 C. Cls. 546.

Treaty of Trade, Consuls, and Emigration Concluded July 28, 1868.

Art. IV. An act of the legislature of California making it an offense to disinter or remove from the place of burial the remains of any deceased person, without a permit, for which a fee of ten dollars must be paid, does not violate the provision in the treaty with China, that Chinese subjects in the United States shall enjoy entire liberty of conscience, and shall be exempt from all disability or persecution on account of their religious faith or worship. In re Wong Yung Quy (1880), 6 Sawy. 442. See as to office of writ of habeas corpus, s. c. Id. 237.

Arts. V and VI. (See also treaty of November 17, 1880). A mining regulation, authorized by a State, which in effect forbids Chinese from working in a mining claim for themselves or for others, seems to be in direct conflict with the provision in Article VI of the treaty with China, that the citizens or subjects of China visiting or residing in the United States shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and ex