RECENT CASES. 507 Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174 ; Abbott v. Hapgood, 150 Mass. 248. The true ground fcr these decisions seems to be that the court will imply a novation from the acts of the parties, when the corporation has accepted the benefits of the contract, or has recog- nized it in its articles of association. Howard v. Ivory Co., 38 Ch. D. 156; Mc Arthur V. Printing C<?., 48 Minn. 319. Criminal Law — Corporations — Contempt of Court. — A newspaper, in the course of an article concerning a pending trial, published a statement of certain facts which could not have been shown in evidence at that trial. Held, that this tended im- properly to influence the jury and was therefore a contempt of court. Telegram AVwj- faper Co. v. Common-wealth, 52 N. E. Rep. 445 (Mass.). See Notes, 12 Harv. Law Rev. 427. Criminal Law — Embezzlement — Jurisdiction. — Defendant entered into a contract with X. in Polk county, whereby he agreed to sell goods in other counties in the state, and send the proceeds to X. Goods were shipped to various places in the state, where they were converted by the defendant, who refused to account for the pro- ceeds upon his return to Polk county. Held, that the venue was properly laid in Polk county. State v. Hengen, 77 N. W. Rep. 453 (Iowa). To give a county court in Iowa jurisdiction of a crime it is necessary, under the Iowa code, that some act which is an essential element of the offence should have been com- mitted in the county. The court held that the refusal of the defendant to make an accounting in Polk county was a necessary ingredient of the embezzlement. But em- bezzlement by a bailee consists only of a conversion animo furandi of property of the bailor. McLain's An. Code of Iowa, § 5215. If the defendant had been a trustee it might well have been argued that there was no embezzlement until there was an obli- gation to account. In the principal case, however, the conversion concededly occurred outside of Polk county. Where venue is confined to the place of the commission of an offence, as in Iowa, it is frequently difficult to determine the jurisdiction of a crime, but it is better to leave the remedy for such a condition to the legislature than to consider as part of the offence facts which have nothing to do with it. People v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 376. Evidence — Character — Civil Suit. — In an action by an engineer for damage resulting from a collision the company showed that he disregarded signals. They claimed that was asleep at his post, while the fireman testified that he was doing his duty. Held, that evidence that on former occasions he had slept while running his engine is inadmissible to prove negligence on his part. Missouri K. dr» T. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 48 S. W. Rep. 568 (Tex., Sup. Ct.). See Notes. Evidence — Mental Attitude — Similar Act Showing Scheme. — On the trial of an indictment for obtaining eggs by false pretences, it was proved that the pris- oner had falsely represented by newspaper advertisements that he was carrying on botui fide a dairyman's business. Held, that evidence that, on two occasions within two months after the transaction in question, the prisoner had fraudulently obtained eggs from other persons by means of similar advertisements, is admissible to show a scheme to defraud. The Queen v. Rhodes, [1899] i Q. B. I). 77. It is a well established rule of evidence that in the trial of criminal cases involving the proof of a special mental condition, such as a felonious intent or guilty knowledge, evidence of similar acts committed by the prisoner is admissible ; that is, if they are near enough in point of time and frequent enough in number to raise a legitimate infer- ence that the offence charged was not the result of a mere accident or mistake, but was rather an act in a premeditated line of conduct. Reg. v. Francis, 12 Cox, C. C. 612 ; Commonxuealth v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481, 501. The principal case is interesting as being very near the line where sxach an inference would be of too slight weight to be of pro- bative value. The decision seems a sensible one, however, it being proper to admit the evidence and leave to the jury the determination of what weight, if any, shall be accorded to it. Evidence — Personal Injuries — Examination by Defendant's Surgeon. — In an action for personal injuries, the plaintiff exhibited her wounds to the jury, but refused to allow the defendant's surgeons to examine them. Held, that the defendant was entitled to have the plaintiff examined by experts of his own selection, in order to rebut the testimony of the plaintiff's physicians. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Langston, 48 S. VV. Rep. 6ro (Tex., Civ. App.). The authorities are in hopeless conflict on this point. Many jurisdictions hold that the right of an individual to have his person free from all restraint or interference is absolute, and to compel him, in a civil suit, to undergo a physical examination is an indignity which the courts will not tolerate. Stuart v. Havens, 17 Neb. 2ir. A number of courts, on the other hand, maintain that when a plaintiff has once exhibited his in- 66
