RECENT CASES. 155 Held, that defendant's refusal to receive further goods was unjustified, and plaintiff could recover damages as to the last instalment, but not as to the one which he could not have delivered in any event. Gerliv. Poidebard Silk Mfg. Co., 31 Atl. Rep. 401 (N. J.), Van Syckel, J., dissenting. See Notes. Corporations — Benefit Society^ Who are entitled to Undistributed Funds. — All members of a mutual benefit society, organized under Friendly Societies Act (10 Geo. IV. c. 56), and all persons entitled to the distribution of funds under the Society's rules were dead, but the Society had not been dissolved, and a comparatively small sum remained in the hands of the trustees, who disclaimed all beneficial interest. Held, that this sum should be held as a resulting trust for the legal representatives of all who had ever been members in proportion to the amount of their contributions, and that an investigation must be had as to who had been members and as to the amount of their contributions, although this investigation would probably more than exhaust the funds on hand. Cunnach v. Edwards, ii The Times Law Rep. 249 (Chan. Div., Chitty, J.). The Supreme Court of Maine, in a.somewhat similar case of an incorporated mutual insurance company, held that the undivided sum should go to the State. Titcomb v. Kennebimk Mut. [its. Co., 79 Me. 315. This Maine decision seems an expedient one, but the English decision seems technically sound. Criminal Law — Lotteries. — Where a tradesman offers a key to each pur- chaser of goods, and advertises that one among those given away will unlock a glass box which is displayed in the shop window and contains $25, which sum is to become the property of the person receiving the right key : Held, sales of goods under such condi- tions are in effect a gift enterprise, and a conviction of the proprietor under a city ordi- nance against lotteries is proper. Davenport v. City of Ottawa, 39 Pac. 708 (Kas.). The statutes against lotteries are usually drafted in very broad terms, and a great many of the chance schemes of enterprising dealers could be prevented by law if the prose- cuting attorney chose to procure indictments. Thus, a newspaper coupon to each sub- scriber entitling the receiver to participate in a prize-drawing is a lottery ticket. State v. Mumford, "j-^ Mo. 647 ; to sell a number of packages of tea at the same price, in some of which a prize ticket is enclosed, is to conduct a lottery. State v. Boneil, 42 La. Ann. 1207 ; so to advertise that the proprietors of a certain establishment will give a gold watch to the customer who on a certain day guesses the number of beans in a certain jar, Hudelson v. State, 94 Ind. 426. Criminal Law — Procedure — Duty to pass Sentence — Loss of Jurisdic- tion. — A prisoner after pleading guilty was allowed to go out of custody without bail. Held,iQ court had no jurisdiction more than three years afterward to rearrest and sen- tence him. People v. Allen, 39 N. E. Rep. 568 (III.). The case decides that it is the duty of the court to sentence the prisoner within a reasonable time after a plea of guilty ; that the court has not authority to suspend passing sentence an unreasonable length of time. So far the case seems thoroughly sound and in accord with authority. The case further holds that a breach of this duty to pass sen- tence within a reasonable time deprives the court of all further jurisdiction in the matter. There seems to be little authority on this point. None of the authority cited in the principal case bears on the second point. Coritrazxt. Beach, New Criminal Procedure, % 1291 ; State v. Watson, 95 Mo, 411. The result reached in the principal case — that those proven guilty of a crime or admittedly guilty must go unpunished — is very unsatis- factory. The doctrine of the Missouri case cited above as contra to the principal case on this point, better serves the ends of justice. Criminal Law — The Presumption of Innocence — Burden of Proof. — Held, that a refusal to charge that innocence is presumed till guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, is erroneous, notwithstanding that the court does charge, fully and ac- curately, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reason- able doubt. Coffin v. United States, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394. See Notes. Equity — Fraud against Creditors — Payment of Premiums on Insurance Policy — Equitable Assets. — Held, that payments made by a debtor as premiums upon a policy of life insurance upon his own hfe, for the benefit of a wife and child, are essentially gifts to the beneficiary, and conclusively fraudulent and void as against credi- tors existing at the time of such payments. Merchants^ dr» Miners* Transportation Co. V. Borland, 31 Atl. Rep. 272 (N. J.). The decision seems manifestly right, and the doctrine is one established in Eng- land. See Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 9 Eq. 206; Stokoe v. Cowan, 7 Jur. (n. S.) 901 ; Jenkyn v. Vaw^kan, 25 L. J. Ch 338. In U. S the decisions are in conflict. In accord with the principal case are Team v. Ward, So Ala. 555 ; Stigler's Ex. v. Stigler, 77 Va. 21
