292 HAR VA RD LA W RE VIE W Jurisdiction — Circuit Courts of Appeal — Chinese Exclusion Act. — A case involving " the application of the Chinese restriction acts to Chinese merchants domiciled in the United States who temporarily leave the country for purposes of business or pleasure animo revertendi, in the light of the treaties between the government of the United States and that of China," presents a question of such importance as will justify the Supreme Court in re- quiring the Circuit Court of Appeals to certify the case to it for review, under Act Cong. March 3, 1891. Ex parte Law On Bond, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43. Libel — Privileged Occasion — The defendant dismissed the plaintiff' from its services on account of gross neglect of duty. A statement by the defendant to its servants of the reason for plaintiff's dismissal is a privileged communication, the servants having an interest in knowing what conduct would render them liable to removal, and the defendant being equally interested in having them know what degree of diligence was expected of them. The occa- sion being privileged, the communication is, unless the plaintiff can show that it was malicious. Hunt v. The Great N. W. Ry. Co. [1891] 2 Q. B. 189 (Eng.) Mortgages — Privity. — A chattel mortgage is, at the suit of firm creditors, declared void as to part of the debt. Can a second mortgagee claim the property after the payment of that part of the debt which is held good, or only after the payment of the whole debt? Held, that the second mortgagee may have the benefit of the amount of deduction of the first-mortgage debt, Winslow, ]. f dis- senting. Hibbard & Co. v. Cribb, 49 N. W. Rep. 823 (Wis.). Partnership — Non-trading — Bills and Notes. — A partnership formed for the purpose of conducting a theatre is a non-trading partnership, in respect to the presumption that one of the partners has no authority to give a firm note. Pease v. Cole, 22 Atl. Rep. 580 (Conn.). Practice — Suspension of Sentence — Good Behavior of Defend- ant. — Courts have no power to suspend sentence except for short periods pending the determination of motions or considerations arising in the cause , after verdict. Indefinite suspension during good behavior of defendant is an exercise of pardoning power not possessed by the courts. U. S. v. Wilson, 46 Fed. Rep. 748. Property — Right of Possession of Dead Body. — A wife may main- tain an action against one who mutilates the dead body of her husband, and recover damages for her mental sufferings caused thereby. The court recognizes that there is no property in the commercial sense in a corpse, but holds that the surviving wife has the right of possession for the purposes of preservation and burial. Larson v. Chase, 50 N. W. Rep. 238 (Minn.). See p. 285. Real Property — A devise to A " for his life and the life of his heir " gives A an estate for two lives, the second life not being capable of identification, however, until the death of A. In re Amos [1891] 3 Ch. 159. Real Property — Disturbance of Easements — Measure of Damages. — Plaintiff bought land in New York abutting upon a street through which defendant company was already operating an elevated railway; but defendant bad never exercised its right of condemning the easement to light, air, and access to and through the street which was appurtenant to the piece of land, in question. In an equitable action to enjoin defendant perpetually from disturb- ing this easement: Held, that the measure of damages upon payment of which the court would allow defendant to condemn and purchase the easement was the difference between the value of the land with and without the elevated rail- road. It was immaterial whether or not plaintiff had paid for the land a reduced price proportioned to the depreciation which had already taken place when she bought it. Pappenheim v. Metropolitan Elevated R.R. Co., 28 N. E. Rep. 518 (N. Y.). Real Property — Interference with Easements — Compensation to Abutters. — Although, where the fee of a street is in the public, the Legislature may authorize a steam railroad to be laid along the grade of the street without providing for compensation to abutting owners, yet where the railroad company raises its tracks upon a stone embankment across which the public cannot con- veniently pass, it is liable in damages to the abutters for the disturbance of their
