Mr. Jefferson G. James, an old and prominent citizen of San Francisco, died in May, 1910; he was a pioneer cattle dealer and politician; he left a large estate to be disposed of under his will, which was written with his own hand and is an eccentric document. One provision in the nature of advice to the distributees reads as follows: “Don’t be mean. Don’t pay my employes more than is being paid them now. No outside speculations. No expensive trips to Europe. Spend your money in this country. Buy or build nice residences and live and enjoy yourselves among people you know. The dividends to the small stockholders will assist in the support of a family.” In a codicil, he recurs to the subject of European travel, which seems to have been a pet aversion; he again says, “No trips to Europe.” RIGHTS OF AN UXORICIDE DENIED An appeal from a decision of Vice-Chancellor Malins, of London, questioning the rights of M. de Tourville to inherit under his wife’s will, was decided against him. M. de Tourville was found guilty of murdering his wife by flinging her down a precipice while travelling with her near Botzen, Austria, in July, 1876. The marriage took place in November, 1875, and the lady was a widow possessed of large property. The day after the marriage she made a will, leaving her property to trustees for the benefit of her children, should there be any, but in default of such, she gave the whole to her husband, the husband being cognizant of this arrangement, and thereby, as alleged by the wife’s relations, instigated to commit the crime of which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to death by the Austrian courts. Having appealed, however, his sentence was commuted to imprisonment for eighteen years. Under these circumstances, the wife’s relations claimed a declaration that De Tourville was incapable of taking any interest under his wife’s will, and argued that the property belonged to Madame de Tourville’s next of kin. The Vice-Chancellor refused the application for a commission, on the ground that the question of law should first be determined whether, in his position, De Tourville should lose the benefits conferred on him by the will, and directed an amendment of the pleadings for that purpose. The case was further complicated by the fact that, previous to his conviction, De Tourville had (not perhaps so cleverly as he thought) assigned his interest under the will to another person. The Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices James and Bramwell, however, reversed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, and granted the application for a commission, the Master of the Rolls remarking that he was at a loss to understand why the application should have been refused. HE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS