EDITORIALS,

Hon. E. B. Hughes.--Who is Mr. Hughes, the subject of this article? He is a lawyer in the city of Sapulpa, Oklahoma; and has been there in the active practice of the law since 1900. He was admitted to practice in the state of Tennessee where he received his education; being a graduate in literature from the Pea Ridge Normal College with the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and in law graduating from the Southern Normal University of Tennessee. Since he settled in Sapulpa he has lead an honorable career as an upright and industrious attorney and secured not only the esteem and respect of his clients, but of the profession for integrity and professional conduct, with his profession to such a degree, that he has often, by reason of his fairness and impartiality been selected to try cases on the bench of the district court both in Creek and Okmulgee Counties; cases of magnitude and far-reaching interests. Such as Craft vs. Connell, in Creek, and Hardridge vs. Lamb in Okmulgee counties and a number of other cases. He has shown all the qualifications of a conscientious lawyer and that of a just and upright Judge. Upon these qualifications backed by many others that are elements and factors of the character of the true citizen, many of the best people both professional and of the masses have urged him to make the race for district judge of his district.

The times require men of unquestionable character for this almost sacred office-men of honor and uplifting character-men of family and home builders as well as knowledge and ordinary qualifications. In spite of all contests and struggles that the eastside has had a great share, by reason of the wealth that has developed in certain sections-wrangles and conflicting interests in which Mr. Hughes has often been employed, no one can point at a single spot that at all tarnishes his character or shows want of integrity or unprofessional conduct. His professional life and his home life stands before the world as pure and

clear as the light of day. As evidence of his social charac

ter he is a member in good standing of the four leading lodges of the world. He is capable to fill every requirement of the district bench. The humblest citizen will find in him the listening ear to all their grievances and the most potent will secure justice at his hands.

JUDGE JAMES R. ARMSTRONG.

Why Judge James R. Armstrong, of the Criminal Court of Appeals, should be re-elected.

First: because a judicial office differs from a ministerial one, however important the office may be; mistakes in a ministerial one are not so far-reaching, while the judicial deal not only with the liberty but with the life of the individual.

Second: because he has been tried and not found

wanting he is not a possible expectation but a realization; the capacity he has shown to unravel intricate questions and to solve them correctly has been demonstrated, and his decisions in the reports attest the fact.

Third: While ever ready to listen to the arguments of enthusiastic counsel, his conclusion must rest upon sound and dispassionate basis-sound reason must prevail and the force and the dignity of the law sustained-a most indulgent and sympathetic person in ordinary matters, but most firm against fine spun theories that will lead to injustice and the useless expenditure of the tax-payer's money to shield ingenious criminals. Listen to the gist of one of his decisions rendered only a few days since, and in his own words: "One cannot hold himself out as an officer of the law and prostitute the public trust and debauch the public conscience by soliciting and accepting bribes and be exonerated by the courts of this state on the ground that he had no legal right to act in the capacity he assumed. If he is officer enough to solicit and accept a bribe he is also officer enough to be sent to the penitentiary for his conduct."

Fourth: Because no democrat can afford to let a position of sacred trust pass from the hands of a tried servant to those of an untried one; nor republicans either, since so divided making it an absolute impossibility to elect permit an untried democrat to succeed, in place of one who knows no dividing party line when justice pleads before the court.

The reasons why he should be re-elected are almost too numerous to enumerate. Like his co-laborer Judge Doyle he knows little of vacations; but much of industry. and the faithful performance of duty. For almost a year the labor of this Court has fallen upon him and Judge Doyle, yet the number of decisions turned out show the industry that has been maintained. From whatever standpoint viewed, the interests of the state demand that Judge James R. Armstrong be overwhelmingly re-elected.

DIGEST OF DECISIONS ON SPECIAL TOPICS OF THE LAW DURING THE MONTH.

(This Department is of vast importance to all the leading lawyers in the active practice, as it gives them an opportunity to ascertain all the new and material points decided in all other jurisdictions, State and Federal during the month.)

BANKS AND BANKING.

Bank Directors are Trustees.-The directors of a bank of deposit and discount are the trustees of its assets for the benefit of the bank and its stockholders, and while individual directors are not officers of the bank and have no individual power and control over its management, yet, as a collective body, they are responsible managers of its business invested with full power to select and appoint officers and agents.

Director's Liability-Directors of bank, failing to require a bond from the cashier, and who by failure to examine the bank books, count its cash, and examine the monthly statements of correspondent banks, permitted him to embezzle large amounts upon over drafts paid by such correspondent banks, HELD, Liable to the receiver for the money so embezzeled.

Lyons vs. Corder, 162 S. W. 606.

The directors of an Insolvent bank cannot make a gen⚫ eral assignment for creditors, such deed can only be executed by the stockholders.

Winston vs. Gordon, 80 8. E. 756.

Banks and Banking.-Where a bank officer offers a note to the bank for discouni, the bank is not chargeable with such officer's knowledge of fraud or want of consideration not arising from his duties as a bank official.

Dominion Fruit Co., v. Hildner 90 Atl. 69.

College-Donation Thereto.-A conveyance of land to the trustees of a college for the use of the college does not require the use of the land for school purposes, and, the college may convey the property,

Claremont College v. Riddle 81 S. E. 283

Courts Jurisdiction.The jurisdiction of a court is not determined by the amount recovered, but by the amount demanded in good faith.

Faircloth v. Kinlaw, 81 S. E. 299.

Excessive Damages. The amount of damages for pain and suffering will be held excessive as a matter of law only in extreme cases,

Central of Georgia Ry Co., v. O'Kelley, 80 S. E. 688. Fraud,-In an action for damages for fraud in effecting an exchange of lands, evidence as to the value of the lands pointed out, HELD, admissible, even though it contained improvements and defendant had been told that plaintiff's land was unimproved.

Shuttlefield vs. Neil, 145 N. W. 7. Fraud.Where in an action for fraud in the sale of a stallion, there was no substantial controversy as to the representations that the horse was an imported one named J evidence of representations by defendants at the time of the sale was not objectionable as enlarging the representations in the written bill of sale and guaranty. Magnuson vs. Burgess, 145 N. W. 32,

LEASES CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS. A count in a petition brought on covenant for quiet enjoyment, in a gas lease, averring lack of title in the lessor, payment of rent and failure of consideration, but no eviction, hostile possession or molestation by the les. sor, and claiming a right to have the rent refunded, Held insufficient as a count of breach of the covenant, but sufficient as one for money paid on a consideration that had partially failed.

2d The covenantes cannot recover on a covenant for quiet enjoyment in an oil and gas lease where he has not been ejected or disturbed in his possession by some person having paramount title or a claim of right under some act of the covenantor inconsistent with the right guarantied by the covenant.

Gaffney vs. Stowers, 80 S. E. 501.