2. In replevin for household goods, defendant disclaimed title, and averred that it was owned by plaintiff's wife, who was living with defendant, her sister. Plaintiff's replication denied title in his wife, and reaverred title and possession in himself. Held, that plaintiff was not competent as a witness as to the ownership of the property, since the issue was between himself and his wife, and neither is competent to testify "against the other," under Act May 23, 1887, § 5, subd. c.-Johnson v. Watson, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 772.

3. In a proceeding by an execution creditor to reach property alleged by the debtor to belong to his wife, and claimed by her as such, the wife is a competent witness as to her own ership, since she is not interested against the husband, within the meaning of Act May 23, 1887, which renders husband and wife incompetent where they offer to testify "against each other."-Norbeck v. Davis, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A.

712.

Transactions with decedents.

4. A trustee under an express trust in a deed, who is also one of the beneficiaries thereunder, is incompetent to testify as to transactions with decedent, adversely to the interests of decedent's grantees, under Act May 23, 1887, $5, cl. e.-Brothers v. Mitchell, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 760.

5. One is not incompetent to testify to a claim against a decedent's estate, as being a person in interest, because he is a surety of the claimant, and may in a certain contingency become his creditor.-In re Spotts' Estate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 132; Appeal of Beetem, Id.

6. In the settlement of an executor's account his wife is competent to testify that certain past-due notes executed by deceased to such executor were in her custody immediately after the death of the maker, and that she handed them over to her husband, to show that the latter held them in his own right, and not as executor.-In re Hoffer's Estate, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 11: Appeal of Earnest, Id.

7. In an action by a donor to set aside a gift to a decedent, she was not a competent witness to testify against the estate of the donee.-Yeakel v. McAtee, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 277.

8. In an action for goods sold, plaintiff may testify as to the identity of his books of account, though the other party to the cause of action is dead; such case not being within Pub. St. c. 214, § 33, relating to transactions with decedents.-Cargill v. Atwood, (R. I.) 27 A. 214.

bridge had been uncovered by a flood, and to prove its location as defendant then saw it; such evidence not being objectionable on the ground of defendant's incompetency to prove the existence of a fact in the lifetime of K., now deceased, or his predecessors in title.-Krepps v. Carlisle, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 741. Examination.

plaintiff's horse from a collision with defend11. In an action to recover for an injury to ant's team, caused by defendant's alleged negligence in hitching his team where they would be easily frightened, a question asked of one of plaintiff's witnesses, whether the team was "standing in the ordinary place in the ordinary way," was improper, being too vague, and assuming the existence of a custom to hitch horses at the place where defendant's horses were frightened,-a fact neither admitted nor proved.-Bassett v. Shares, 27 A. 421, 63 Conn. 39.

Cross-examination.

12. Where, in an action for injuries caused by a defective highway, plaintiff testifies on cross-examination that he had previously been injured by a defective highway in another town, and sued therefor, and as to the character of such injuries, it is not error to refuse to permit him to be asked also whether he recovered of such town.-Jacobs v. Town of Croydon, (N. H.) 27 A. 122.

Contradicting collateral matters drawn out on cross-examination.

13. On libel for liquors found in a certain room in claimant's hotel, a witness testified that she occupied the next room, and had heard claimant in the first room with different persons, talking about liquors and prices, and, on cross-examination, that A. was one of such persons. Claimant called A., and asked him if he was ever in said room. Held relevant to impeach the former witness, though on a matter brought out on cross-examination.-State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 27 A. 178, 85 Me. 304.

WRITS.

See, also, "Attachment:" "Entry, Writ of;" "Execution;" "Garnishment;" "Injunction;" "Mandamus;" "Replevin." Service, see "Judgment," 2. Issuance and validity.

10. In ejectment it appeared that certain land was conveyed to K., plaintiff's ancestor, the grantor reserving to himself therefrom a lot, one of whose boundaries was the east end of a bridge, and defendant thereafter acquired such lot by mesne conveyances. If, as claimed by plaintiffs, the east end of the bridge had been moved since the conveyance to K., the land in dispute belonged to them; otherwise to defendant. Held, that it was error not to permit defendant to testify that since the death of K. the location of the old abutment of the

763.

Amendment-On appeal.

2. When, in ejectment, there are an original and an amended praecipe, and the jury find for the plaintiffs the lands described in the praecipe, without describing which one, the plaintiffs, on the argument on appeal, will be allowed to amend the praecipe, and correct the judgment so as to restrict it to the land to which they were entitled under the evidence, on payment of costs.-Brothers v. Mitchell, (Pa. Sup.) 27 A. 760.