irritable and nervous condition. She was then arbitrary and dominant in character, habit and practice; accustomed to exact strict compliance with her wishes by this plaintiff and by every one who came in contact with her, and she was a very difficult person to get along with. Her physical and mental condition was such that she had constant need of a nurse and companion of her own sex and her own class. She was unable to keep in her service as a companion or as a nurse people of ordinary circumstances upon ordinary terms for any length of time because of the lack of consideration with which she treated them and the duties which she insisted upon their performing. She was unwilling to treat and did not treat with courtesy or consideration those dependent upon her and those who served her and those who associated with her. She was then penurious in disposition and unwilling to pay during her life adequate compensation for services of that nature. Upon information and belief, she was accustomed to obtain the services of men and women (even of hotel bell boys and porters), without paying them any compensation, upon her promise to compensate them by legacies in her will. Her estate was large, approximating in value $1,800,000 then and at the time of her death.

Her nature and disposition were so irascible that she became frequently involved in quarrels and misunderstandings and antagonisms with many whom she had business and social and personal relations. This subjected plaintiff to many difficulties and humiliations. For example, on one occasion Mrs. Leslie was ordered out of a dining car because she insisted in feeding her dog at the table, thus violating the rules of the car. Plaintiff was obliged to leave the car with Mrs. Leslie in the presence of a number of people and afterwards to return to the car and obtain food which she carried thence to Mrs. Leslie and her dog in the car in which Mrs. Leslie had a seat.

The said Mrs. Leslie was at all of the times herein mentioned of a very penurious disposition. For example in September, 1913, she forbade this plaintiff to take cream with her coffee at breakfasts at the Sherman Square Hotel because there was an additional charge of ten cents for the service of cream. She often loudly complained at the hotel dining rooms that the plaintiff ate too much, which was not the case. Mrs. Leslie obliged this plaintiff to live at hotels in a manner not fit and at a scale much below that to which this plaintiff was accustomed. For example, the room furnished this plaintiff at the Chelsea Hotel was small, dark, improperly ventilated and not intended for the purposes of a bedroom, and injurious to health. The heat in said room was at times so intense as to cause plaintiff to have vertigo and bleeding of the nose. The room furnished at the Sherman Square Hotel, to plaintiff, was of like nature. Plaintiff was not permitted to have any light in her room at night. The bed furnished plaintiff was a cot, and plaintiff frequently had to supply her own bed linen and towels because of Mrs. Leslie's failure to provide a proper and sufficient supply and change of same. The room, bed, and bath used by plaintiff at the Sherman Square Hotel had been used by a companion of Mrs. Leslie who had suffered with, and died of a cancer

while acting as a companion for Mrs. Leslie. Mrs. Leslie interfered with the personal life of this plaintiff. She insisted that this plaintiff should dress so as to please the said Mrs. Leslie. This resulted in much discomfort and mortification to this plaintiff. For example, on one occasion in or about the month of September, 1913, plaintiff was obliged by Mrs. Leslie to attend a luncheon in a silk petticoat without any skirt over the same because said Mrs. Leslie objected to the plaintiff's wearing any of the dresses which were then in plaintiff's possession.

XI. Plaintiff performed other services for the said Mrs. Leslie at times and places which are now unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff prays leave to offer evidence upon the trial concerning such services in case before that time she is able to refresh her recollction as to such dates and places by the discovery of correspondence or by conversations with witnesses of such services.

XII. In consideration of the performance of the said services by plaintiff as aforesaid and of plaintiff's continuance in the performance of the same said Mrs. Leslie promised to bequeath to this plaintiff by her last will and testament a legacy of the sum of $50,000. Said promise was made in or about the month of February, 1902, and was repeated on subsequent occasions. In consideration of said promise the services hereinbefore set forth were performed by plaintiff.

XIII. The said will of said Mrs. Leslie left this plaintiff no more than the sum of $10,000.

XIV. By the action of the said Mrs. Leslie as aforesaid this plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $40,000 dollars with interest from September 17th, 1915.

AND THIS PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AS A SECOND, DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION:

XV. She repeats and refers to the previous allegations herein designated by the paragraph numbers I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI, and she incorporates the same in this complaint with the same effect as if the same were repeated specifically and at length.

XVI. In consideration of the performance of the said services by plaintiff as aforesaid, and of plaintiff's continuance in the performance of the same, said Mrs. Leslie promised to pay to this plaintiff the reasonable value for said services.

XVII. The reasonable value of said services was the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars.

XVIII. Mrs. Leslie has not paid this plaintiff any part of the same except the sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars which said Mrs. Leslie bequeathed this plaintiff by her will.

XIX. By the action of Mrs. Leslie as aforesaid, this plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of forty thousand ($40,000) dollars with interest from September 17th, 1915.

AND THIS PLAINTIFF ALLEGES AS A THIRD, DISTINCT AND SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION:

XX. She repeats and refers to the previous allegations herein designated

by the paragraph numbers, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI, and she incorporates the same in this complaint with the same effect as if the same were repeated herein specifically and at length.

XXI. In consideration of the performance of the said services by plaintiff as aforesaid, and of plaintiff's continuance in the performance of the same, said Mrs. Leslie promised to pay to this plaintiff after her death and to bequeath to this plaintiff by the last will and testament of Mrs. Leslie, an amount equal to the reasonable value of said services.

XXII. The reasonable value of said services was the sum of fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars.

XXIII. Said Mrs. Leslie has failed to pay this plaintiff any part of the same except the sum of $10,000 which said Mrs. Leslie bequeathed this plaintiff by her will and the said Mrs. Leslie has failed to bequeath to this plaintiff more than the sum of $10,000.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for the sum of $40,000 with interest as aforesaid and for such other and further relief in the premises as may be just, together with the costs of this action.

Roger Foster, being duly sworn, deposes and says the foregoing amended complaint is true to my own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe the same to be true.

The reason why the said amended complaint is not sworn to by the plaintiff, is that the plaintiff is not within the County and State of New York, in which I reside. The sources of my information and the grounds of my belief as to all matters not therein stated to be alleged upon my own knowledge are conversations and correspondence with the plaintiff, and with members of the plaintiff's family, and with other witnesses and letters.

Sworn to before me this

6th day of July, 1918.

LILLIAN ROHMER,

Notary Public No. 47,

Bronx County.

Certificate filed in N. Y. Co.

Commission expires, March 30, 1919.

ROGER FOSTER.

COMMON LAW FORM IX.-COMPLAINT AT COMMON LAW UNDER ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW.

IN THE [DISTRICT] COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The plaintiff above named, by Hays, Hershfield & Wolf, his attorneys, complaining of the defendants, shows to this Court and alleges, upon information and belief:

1. That the defendant, National Packing Company, at all of the times hereinafter mentioned, was and still is a foreign corporation, duly created by and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey.

2. That the defendant, Swift & Company, at all of the times herein. after mentioned, was and still is a domestic corporation, duly created by and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. 3. That the defendant, Armour & Company, at all of the times hereinafter mentioned, was and still is a foreign corporation, duly created by and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey. 4. That the plaintiff, at all of the times hereinafter mentioned, was and still is engaged in the business of purchasing in the State of New York, and other States of the United States, meats obtained from cattle and the products thereof, and selling the same at retail.

5. That heretofore and at all of the times hereinafter mentioned The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company was and still is a domestic corporation, duly created by and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

6. That said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company was organized and incorporated, as aforesaid, in the year 1902, with a capital stock of $75,000, consisting of 7,500 shares, of the par value of $100 each, all of which stock has been issued and is now outstanding.

7. That the plaintiff, at all the times hereinafter mentioned, was and still is the actual owner and record holder, on the books of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company, of 30 shares of the capital stock of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company.

8. That William G. Wagner, Arthur Bloch, Samuel Bloch and Aaron Buchsbaum were, with others, the incorporators of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company and were, until April, 1907, the major

ity stockholders thereof, and by reason and virtue of said majority stock control, through themselves, or their nominees, constituted or controlled a majority of the Board of Directors of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company.

9. That until said last named date, the said Arthur Bloch was the President of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company, and for a short time subsequent thereto was the Vice President thereof. The said Wagner was, until said last named date, the Secretary thereof, and the said Buchsbaum was the Treasurer thereof.

That since said last

named date the defendant, Frederick Joseph, has been and still is the President of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company, and that since the resignation of said Arthur Bloch, as Vice President, shortly after April, 1907, the said defendant Leo Joseph became and still is the Vice President of said Company. That the defendant, Moses Joseph, since April, 1907, has been and still is the Secretary and Treasurer of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company.

10. That said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company has been from the time of its inception and still is engaged in the business of purchasing, in the various States of the United States, cattle and the products thereof, and particularly is engaged in the purchase thereof in the States of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey and New York, and transporting said cattle and the products thereof to New York City, to be killed and dressed at the abattoir or slaughter house of said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company in New York City, where the said cattle and the products thereof are dressed and then transported to and sold by said The New York Butchers' Dressed Meat Company in vari. ous parts of the States of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other States of the United States and in Europe.

11. That at all the times mentioned in this complaint the corporate defendants herein have been and still are likewise engaged in the business of purchasing, in the various States of the United States, cattle and the products thereof, and are particularly engaged in the purchase thereof in the States of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey and New York, and transporting said cattle and the products thereof, to be killed and dressed at their abattoirs, located, principally in the State of Illinois, Kansas and Missouri, where the said cattle and the products thereof are dressed, and then transported to and sold by the said corporate defendants in practically every State of the United States and Europe.

12. That at all of the times hereinafter mentioned the said defendants herein owned or controlled, and do now own or control, many other firms co-partnerships and corporations engaged in the same business as the said defendants herein, so that by reason of the said ownership or control the said defendants herein has been and still is intra and interstate and a very large and important part-in fact, substantially all-of the business aforesaid, of dealing in said cattle and selling the products thereof as aforesaid.

13. That at all the times mentioned in this complaint the business of