Personal Property-Sale-Identification.—In sales of personal property when anything remains to be done to the thing sold to identify it, or discriminate it from other things, the sale is not complete. But if the clear intention of the parties is, that the property shall pass, notwithstanding something remains to be done to it before it is definitely ascertained, the sale will be considered executed. Wells v. Littlefield. Tex, June 25.

Denver L. J., Sept. 11.

Practice-Mode of Stating Causes for Action.—A plaintiff seeking a single recovery upon two grounds, both of which may be true, may state both grounds in a single cause of action. A plaintiff claiming to recover upon either of two causes of action, both of which can not be true, and he does not know which one is true, may state them as separate causes of action, stating them in the alternative, in one petition. Citizens' Nt. Bank v. C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. Cincinnati Sup. Ct.

Special Verdict.-A special verdict must state facts essential to the entry of a judgment upon it. It cannot be aided by intendment, or a reference to extrinsic facts appearing on the record. Kinkaid v. Schultz, Pa. 40 Leg. Int. 329.

Telegraph Company—Message—"Subject to Delay.”—Telegraph company no right to insist on the sender of a message consenting to have it stamped "accepted subject to delay." Marvin v. Western Union. Dist. Ct. City of N. Y. Chicago L. N., Sept. 1.

Trade-Mark-What is.-The terms "sliced animals," "sliced birds,” etc., applied to dissected pictures or puzzles for childreu, were held a valid trade-mark, as being arbitrary fancy names, and not describing the arti cle nor the game. Selchow v. Baker. N. Y. 64 How. Pr. 212.

Trade-Mark- What Not.-The object ofa trade-mark is to indicate by its own meaning, or by association, the origin or ownership of the article to which it is applied. Held,that a sign placed over a man's place of business with a row of beer barrels painted on it, would indicate that he sold beer; the letters "P. B." stamped on the head of the barrels, and the words "Depot of the Celebrated” placed above, and the words "Philadelphia Beer" placed below the row of barrels, would indicate that he sold Philadelphia beer, and such sign and label relate only to the description of the beverage dealt in by him, and cannot be protected as a trade mark. Eggers v. Hink. Cal. 11 Pac. C. L. J. 427.

Undue Influence—Spiritualism.—Where a testator embraced spiritualism as practiced by his beneficiary, who claimed to be a spirit-medium, and the testator became possessed of it, and suffered it to dominate his life, and where his belief in spiritualism was artfully used by the beneficiary to alienate him from his only son and to get his property, held, that a will made in such a mental condition and under such influences should be set aside. Thompson v, Hawks, U.S. C. C. D. Ind. Fed. Rep., March, 1883.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL AMENDMENT.

Every member of the profession should make a special effort to get this amendment properly in the hands of the voters at the coming election.

Remember that every vote cast, if not for the amendment, counts against it, whether it be so written or not.

No man can vote without having his ballot counted either for or against the amendment. Therefore, it is all-important that every ticket of every party should bear the words "For the Constitutional Judicial Amendment, YES."

If the voter wants to vote against it, he can do so either by erasing the whole or by erasing "Yes" and writing "No" instead.

We notice that some German newspapers have advised their readers to vote against all the amendments. This is done through forgetfulness of the amendment of which we now speak. See these German editors and have a special notice given to their readers that this amendment is not political and ought to be voted for. A few hours' work will secure this desirable change in our judicial system.

EXAMINATION OF APPLICANTS.

The next examination of applicants for admission to the bar will be held on next Tuesday. Anent this examination we may mention the fact-it being of kin by blood and closely related in interest-that Will H. Scott, of 64 W. Third street,

Cincinnati, O., has collected and published in pamphlet form, all the "questions submitted to the graduating classes" of the Cincinnati Law School, from 1879 to the present time, which he sells at the small sum of fifty cents.

AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE.

We publish elsewhere in this issue an article from the pen of one of the most successful law writers of to-day, Mr. J. W. Donovan, of Detroit, Michigan, author of "Modern Jury Trials," "Trial Practice," etc. He is working a particular vein peculiarly his own, which, although it does not deal with the dry technicalities of the law, yet yields that which every practitioner stands most sorely in need of. The article we publish is in the same line as his former works, was written expressly for the OHIO LAW JOURNAL and will be followed by others of a similar character. Trials of fact or questions of fact are too much neglected, and in a failure to get out all the facts, or to properly handle them after they have them, is wherein nine-tenths of those lawyers who do not succeed are lame. The desire of the JOURNAL is to help lawyers to help themselves, and we feel sure we cannot do this better than by giving them the secret of "winning cases."

NOTES OF CASES.

NEWSPAPER LIBEL.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, in the recent case of Negley v. Farrow, lays down, in clear cut terms, one phase of the law of libel by newspapers. The court say: "The fact that one is the proprietor of a newspaper entitles him to no privilege in this respect not possessed by the community in general. The law recognizes no duty, imposed by him arising from his relations to the public, to defame and libel the character of any one; and if he does, it is no answer to say he did so in good faith and without malice, believing it to be true. Malice in one sense may be said to be an essential element in an action for libel, but not malice in the ordinary sense of hatred,

or ill-will against the person of whom the defamatory words are spoken, If the publication be in itself libellous, the law in all such cases implies malice-in other words it says you have no right to libel another, whatever may have been, the. motive or intention."

In this day of cheap columny and a penchant on the part of a certain class of journalists for the sensational, this is an eminently just and righteous holding, But it has been laid down by our law writers and is held by our courts, that where. the circumstances under which the libel was uttered are such as to indicate that it was done in supposed line of duty, presumption of malice is rebutted, and the onus of proving, actual malice, or the want of reasonable or probable cause, is, upon the plaintiff; Cook v. Hill, 3 Sandf. 349.; Darrett v. Dickerson, 19 Md. 450; White v. Nichols, 3 How. 267; Bradley v. Fisher, 3 Wall. 335; Dawkins v. Lord, Paulet L. R.,5 Q. B. 94; Dickenson v. Earl of Wilton, 1 F. & F. 419; Maurice v. Warden, 54 Md.; Falkhard's Starkie, § 688; 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 251.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES.

WINNING CASES.

The subject most vital to a trial lawyer's parctice is the art of winning cases before juries. His record will be early made, and he can govern his fortune for many years by a single victory in a single line of practice; with all this responsibility. before him, with life and death at his fingers' ends, how few will profit by any other than a series of blunders, to attain a reasonable degree of skill in the winning way resorted to by our shrewdest advocates? Some are so selfish that they think they have learned all there is to be known, and need only wait their golden opportunity. As well say one man owns all the rare paintings in Christendom. The novelty of argument is often the charm that holds a waiting audience. If one expects to win law suits before juries-a majority must be won or lost this way-he will early learn the advantage of striking statements and original illustrations.

Mr. Beecher's great popularity grew from his quaint expressions and apt figures of speech; Talmage came to fame by a similar road; Gough and Collins each follow the style of speaking that appeals to the eye and heart and senses, with a unique art that is captivating.

Lincoln, through his stories, turned many a verdict that Brady would have won by pathos, Voorhees by rhetoric, and Webster by a commanding logic. The history of Corwin's career, with his jokes excluded, would be mostly unprofitable; Mark Twain, Bret Harte, and Artemus Ward each establish their view of the value of saving something in speeches. If we come a little nearer and take a few actual cases, we will be more firmly grounded in the belief that saying things with tact, spirit, and energy, is the key to conviction or clearance in very many trials. Here are three reported instances:

F was charged with an assault on E's wife with a stove griddle. He was taken far from his home and tried by a jury. Deep feeling existed. Both families lived in one house, and all know the unhappy consequences. For the people, were five witnesses; for the defense, his own statement. Counsel was called from a distance, and much expected of his address to the jury-simply because he had a name for making peculiar arguments. I shall never forget how serenely he first separated all witnesses, how clearly he drew the contrast of each story by itself, how poorly the people's case really matched itself. I began to think it was time for fine work-when, without a sign of any notes, counsel began his defense by the bible story of "Susanna and the Elders." It was not over half told when he was called on to name the page, and insisted his bible was not paged, as every intelligent lawyer should know before his election as prosecutor! The jury's eyes said go on. They were evidently interested in Susanna's fate, and we could now see that the spirit of the play was in the story-when "Daniel come to judgment," and by his art of separating witnesses, released her, counsel could see that it discharged the defendant, and abruptly closed his speech with a verdict of acquittal, and this in the face of five witnesses!

The next case was an action for trimming shade trees, not large in amount, but pointed in practice. M owned a house and lot in T, on a corner, near a planing mill. It was sur