BTATE V. GRAND TEDNK RY. 887 �more equitable that this plaintiff should lose than the coal Company. �A decree may therefore be entered in conformity with the ■view which the court takes of the controversy, the resuit of which -will be that the property sold will be transferred to the coal company, and the Insurance company and Mr. Buch- anan milst decide their controversy in another litigation, •which, acoording to the evidence, is now pending in another forum. ���State of New Hampshiee v. Thb Grand Trunk Eailway. (Oireait Court, D, New Hampsfdre. Ootober 8, 1880.) �1. State Statutb— Statb Codkt— Consteuction. — In construing local �or State statutes the federal courts will foUow the construction given to such statutes by the highest courts of the respective states. �2. Bhmoval — CHiMiNAii Cash— AcT of Mabch 3, 1875.— The act of March �3, 1875, does not makp provision for the removal of a criminal case from a state court to i,iie federal courts ujjon a claim of alienage. �Motion to Eemand. �Mr. Ladd, for the State. �Ray, Drew e Jordan, for the Grand Trunk Eailway. �Claek, d. J, At the supreme court of the state of New Hampshire, holden at Lancaster, in the county of Coos, on the fourth Tuesday of April, 1877, the Grand Trunk Eailway, a corporation established under the laws of Canada, was indicted by the grand jury for that county for carelessly and negligently injuring one John E. Willis, at West Milan, in said county, so that he died of his injuries. �The statute of New'Hampshire, under which the indiotment was found, is as follows, (Gen. Laws N. H. 635, § 14:) "If the life of any person not in their employment shall be lost by reason of the negligence or carelessness of the proprietora of any railroad, or by the unfitness or gross negligence or carelessness of their servants or agents in this state, such proprietors shall be fined not exceeding $5,000, nor less than |500, and one-half of such fine shall go to the widow, and ����
