it shall be free, simply by stepping across a state line long enough to contract." Union Trust Company v. Grosman, Decided January 7, 1918, and reported in U. S. Adv. Ops., 1917, page 181.

EVIDENCE; COMPETENCY OF PERJURED WITNESS IN FEDERAL COURTS.-The defendants were prosecuted upon the testimony of one witness for the prosecution. Objection was interposed at trial to his testimony inasmuch as he had previously been convicted of perjury, and this having been overruled, appeal was made and the question raised. The Supreme Court of the United States, in upholding the judgment of the lower court as to the admission of the testimony of the perjured witness expressed the modern tendencies of judicial and legislative action as to the competency of witnesses made incompetent by the common law, said in part, through Justice Clarke. The disposition of courts and of legislative bodies to remove disabilities from witnesses has continued under dominance of the conviction of our time that the truth is more likely to be arrived at by hearing the testimony of all persons of competent understanding who may seem to have knowledge of the facts involved in a case, leaving the credit and weight of such testimony to be determined by the jury or by the court, rather than rejecting witnesses as incompetent; with the result that this principle has come to be widely, almost universally, accepted in this country and in Great Britain. Rosen v. United States, Decided January 7, 1918, and reported in U. S. Adv. Ops., 1917, page 163.

* to

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT HELD VALID -The Act of Congress of May 18, 1917, granting the President of the United States power to increase temporarily the military establishment of the United States is valid and constitutional and is within the power of Congress to pass. The authority is found in the clauses of the Constitution giving Congress power "to declare war.; raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer period than two years; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Article 1, par. 8, U. S. Const. The power of Congress to raise armies is not narrowed by the further provisions of that section concerning the militia, the army and militia powers being different and operating in distinct and separate fields. The provisions of the Selective Draft Act neither violate the prohibition of U. S. Const., 1st Amendment, against the establishment of a religion or an interference with the free exercise thereof, nor do they impose involuntary servitude as defined and granted in the 13th Amendment to the U. S. Const. Arver ". United States, Decided January 7, 1918, and reported in U. S. Adv. Ops., 1918, page 193.

(Decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands.)
(By S. R. C.)

CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DYING DECLARATIONS.-When death supervenes speedily after a dying declaration is made, the inference that the declarant realized his condition may be obvious; but it should be remembered that it is

he belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death, in point of fact, hat renders the testimony admissible. The admissibility of the declaration depends on the state of the declarant's mind at the time of making the declaration; and the nere fact that death does not immediately follow will not render the declaration inadmissible, provided death does ensue as a result of the injuries which are the subject of the declaration. (Per Street, J., in U. S. v. Virrey, R. G. No. 12901, decided February 12, 1918.)

GOOD FAITH: DEFINITION.-Good faith, or the lack of it, is in its last analysis a question of intention; but in ascertaining the intention by which one is actuated on a given occasion, we are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined. So it is that "the honesty of intention," "the honest lawful intent," which constitutes good faith implies a "freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry," and so it is that proof of such knowledge overcomes the presumption of good faith in which the courts always indulge in the absence of proof to the contrary. "Good faith or the want of it, is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs." (Per Carson, J., in Leung Yee v. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co., R. G. No. 11658, decided February 15, 1918.) JOINT OBLIGATION: MEANING OF THE TERM IN THE PHILIPPINES. In this jurisdiction at least, the word "jointly" when used by itself in a judgment rendered in English is equivalent to the word mancomunadamente, and that it is necessary to use the words "joint and several" in order to convey the idea cxpressed in the Spanish term solidariamente (in solidum); and further, that a contract, or a judgment based thereon, which fails to set forth that a particular obligation is "joint and several" must be taken to have in contemplation a "joint" (mancomunada), and not a "joint and several" (solidary) obligation.

A similar distinction is made in Louisiana, doubtless under like historic influences to those which have resulted in the construction that has always been given to these terms here in the Philippines:

"A joint obligation under the law of Louisiana binds the parties thereto only for their proportion of the debt, whilst a solidary obligation, on the contrary, binds each of the obligators for the whole debt." (Per Carson, J., in Sharruf v. The Tayabas Land Co., R. G. No. 12021, decided February 15, 1918.)

CIVIL PROCEDURE; INTERVENTION; DISCRETION OF COURTS.— As regards the admission of new plaintiffs it may be laid down generally, that persons claiming the same right as the plaintiff and who are admitted by the plaintiff to have a like interest with him in the action will usually be allowed to come into the suit to assist in the litigation.

Where the new parties have a hostile attitude to the original plaintiff or seek to assert rights inconsistent with or superior to those of the parties of record, they must come in as defendants, if they are to come at all. It is a rule that if the interests of the original parties would be seriously prejudiced by admitting them, they will not be admitted. That a stranger to a suit will not be permitted, on his own application, and over the objection of the plaintiff, to become a defendant, is a well established rule with but few exceptions. The original plaintiff ought not to be forced into litigation with those not of his seeking. To permit the petitioner to be made a defendant rests upon the judicial discretion of the court.

As regards the right to intervene for the purpose of asserting a right in the res or subject-matter of the litigation, it may be said that if the party desiring to intervene shows a legitimate and proper interest in it, his petition for intervention should be granted. (Per Street, J., in Joaquin v. Herrera et al., R. G. No. 11217, decided February 28, 1918.)

The fifth annual banquet of the Law Alumni Association was held at the Hotel de France on the evening of March 31 of this year. Barring the failure of some of the guests to be present on account of the unfortunate misunderstanding with regard to the correct date of the affair, this year's banquet was quite a success. It is particularly gratifying to have it announced that twenty-seven new members have been added to the roll of the Association this year. The speakers of the evening were Mr. Ricardo C. Lacson, President of the Association, who acted as the toastmaster; Mr. Mariano Ampil of the Class of 1918 who spoke for the new graduates; Mr. Eulogic Benitez of the Class of 1913 who spoke for the old alumni; and Dean Jorge Bocobo of the College of Law, who delivered the principal toast of the evening and who gave a complete account of the work done by the College during the year 1917-1918.

After the banquet and speeches, the regular annual meeting of the Association was held under the direction of the retiring president, Mr. Lacson. The following business was taken up:

1. The reading of the minutes of the last year's meeting was dispensed with. 2. Upon motion duly seconded and carried the members of the 1918 Laws were made regular members of the Association with all the rights and privileges appertaining to the alumni of the College of Law.

3. Upon motion duly seconded and carried the officers of the Association for the year 1918-1919 were elected by acclamation, and they are the following:

4. It was resolved to nominate the official candidate of the College of Law Alumni Association for the regular election of an alumnus of the University to represent the entire body of alumni in the Board of Regents with the understanding that whoever should come out as the choice of those present shall be supported by all in the final election.

5. Mr. Eulogio Benitez was duly elected as the official candidate for the Board of Regents.

6. Upon motion duly seconded and carried the retiring officers were appointed to constitute a committee to investigate the charges of the Dean of the College of Law with regard to the indifference of the alumni in the affairs and progress of their Alma Mater.

7. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p. m.

A MEMORABLE GATHERING OF THE 1913 LAWS

At the sound of the trumpet of the Ex-Secretary and Ex-Dean of the College of Law, the members of the first graduating class of that institution gathered at the Poodle Dog Café around an imposing round table profusely decorated with flowers and evergreens, showing the number 13 at the center of the table which represents the first group of young men that the College of Law turned out as its first finished product in the month of April of the year 1913. The Ex-Secretary and Ex-Dean and now Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, was the host of the evening and gave those who were fortunate enough to come one of the greatest treat that they ever had in their lives. After partaking the most delicious of food and the costliest of wines, humorous speeches, stories and anecdotes of the old days were in turn told by those who were present. The dinner was closed by the most fraternal and open hearted speech of the kind host. The memory of the event will never fade away from the minds of the guests.