490 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. ?yllabm. 209 U. 8. ricer are clearly defined in the statutes to which reference is made. The intimidating effect of the acts of appellee upon the 'deal* ers in the syrups is set out and the detriment resulting there- from to appellants detailed. It is manifest from this summary of the allegations of the bill that this is not a suit against the State. C?rnnin?ham v. Michigan, 631. It is not a suit, as was Arbu?/e v. B/ack/mm, supra, to restrain a criminal prosecution. Indeed, the bill alleges that a criminal prosecution was invited by appellant sad refused by appellee, and refused, it is alleged, to serve the purpose of what the bill denominates a "crusade" against the syrups of sppellants, and in dereliction of duties enjoined by the statutes of the State. Dwn?e re?rs?d and t? case ranan&d /or ]urther proa?in?. MR. JUSTICE H?RL?N concur? in the decree. MATTER OF ALBERT N. MOORE, AN INFANT
- PETITIONER.
PETITION P0R WRIT OF MANDAM'US. .qo. 17, OwJ?ln&L A?-,?d Mm,,d2 9, 1008.?Deeldmi ApeJl ?0, !?8. In ?itl?' ?, the filing by the defendant of a petition for removal, the filing by th? plaintiff s2ter removal of an amended complaint ar the giving of a ?ipulation for contlnuanee, amotmt? to thz aeoeptance of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. A next friend may select one of ?everal tribunals in which the infmat's caze shall be tried, and may elect to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal eourt to which the ca?e may be removed. While consent calmot oonfer on a Federal cour? jurisdiction of a case of which no Federal court would have jurisdiction, either party m?y waive
�
