256 FEDKEAIi EEPOBTER. �The defendant insista that, in view of Brockway's pecuniary circum- stances and his station in life, it is highly improbable that he could be honafde indebted to Seybert for so large an amount as $10,000. It is further urged that if any such indebtedness in fact existed, it was in the power of Daniel P. 8eybert, the use party plaintiff, to show that indebtedness, to prove the consideration for which the note was given, and that the entire absence of such evidence raises a strong presumption against the honafides of the note. It is for you to say what weight should be given to these considerations, which the de- fendant's counsel have pressed upon you. �The case, as submitted to the jury, turns upon the determination of two questions of fact. The one relates to the habits of Brockway in respect to sobriety ; the other bas regard to the character of the policy in suit. �(1) Was Beckwith S. Brockway, on March 8, 1868, " sober and temperate," and had he always been so? �(2) Was the policy in suit a bonaflde risk upon the life of Brockway, or was it merely a speculative transaction on the part of Seybert — a wagering policy ? �If you find both these questions of fact in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict will be for the plaintiff. But if your flnding upon these questions of fact, or upon either of them, is against the plaintiff, your verdict must be for the defendant. — lins. Law J. ���Strettell V. Ballou and others. (Circuit Court, D. Colorado. October 15, 1881.; �1. MiNERAIi LaNDS — ClAIM — PARTITION — CiBCUIT COUBT — JUKISDIOTION DT �Equitt. �The jurisdiction in equity of tho circuit court of the United States is derived from the constitution and laws of the United States alone. Hence, a bill for partition, brought in the circuit court by the owner of an undivided interest in a mining claim, will he dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as the title to the land remains in the United States. �M. B. Carpenter, for complainant. �Dixon e Reed, for respondent. �McCbary, C. J. It bas long been settled that the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States in equity is derived from and defined by the constitution and laws of the United States; that it is the same in all the states, and is not to be affected or varied by the varions statutes of the states, whereby the chancery powers and jurisdiction of state courts may be defined and regulated. This court ��� �
