Cuyahoga County Circuit. of his flat the entrance onto Lakeview court was fully completed Nicholls and his wife testified that Crawford said nothing to them about the use of plaintiff's land. Conceding the law of the case to be that, upon the termination of his lease from plaintiffs, it was the defendant's duty to notify his tenants that they should no longer use the plaintiffs' premises, still we can not say that the jury was wrong in finding for the defendant. They might well have believed that the tenants continued said use notwithstanding their landlord forbade them to; it can not be maintained that it was the defendant's duty to board up the openings referred to. It is claimed as prejudicial error, however, that the trial court refused to submit certain interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff to be answered by the jury in the event it should return a general verdict, as provided in Sec. 5201 R. S. (Sec. 11462 G. C.) These questions are as follows: "Did defendant collect rent for the use of the ten foot strip of plaintiff's premises from the United States Express Company, covering a period subsequent to February 1st, 1903, and if so, for how long a period?" This question was cleverly worded to avoid asking when he collected the rent, for the record shows that Crawford received it before he knew that plaintiffs would terminate his monthly tenancy. Manifestly an answer to this question would not tend to show whether Crawford held over after notified that his lease was terminated, and the petition does not claim anything due plaintiffs by reason of this payment of the express company. The next question was: "Were the coal holes on plaintiff's land used by defendant's tenants after February 1st, 1903, and if so, for how long?" There was evidence tending to show such use, but the liability of the defendant depended upon his consent thereto. No question was asked, which, taken with this question, would tend to determine the defendant's knowledge of or acquiescence in such use. The same objection arises as to the next question : Bardons & Oliver v. Crawford. "After the doors were cut in the tenements on Fairview court, did the tenants of defendant continue to use plaintiffs' premises as a means of entrance and exit?" Another reason for rejecting this interrogatory is that no Fairview court was mentioned in the evidence. There was a Lakeview court opened by defendant, but no Fairview court. These two questions if answered most favorably to the plaintiffs would not tend to "test the correctness of the general verdict." The Supreme Court has several times stated that such must be the intent of the questions. Cleveland & Elyria Electric Ry. Co. v. Hawkins, 64 Ohio St. 391 [60 N. E. 558]. His tenants' continued use of the coal holes and strip of land would be repeated trespasses on their part, and have no tendency to prove the liability of the defendant, unless followed up with proof of Crawford's acquiescence therein or failure to notify them to cease such use. No question covering this important link in the chain was submitted and the court therefore, very promptly declined to submit the whole series of questions. To have given them without reference to Crawford's consent or neglect to notify, would have tended to mislead the jury as to the foundation for their general verdict. The last question was: "Did W. J. Crawford notify his tenant, Chas. Nicholls, that he must not use plaintiff's ten foot strip of land?" As Nicholls did not move in until six months after his landlord's right to use this strip had terminated and until after the tenement was fully provided with other proper entrances, we think the defendant was under no obligation to notify his tenant not to trespass upon the adjoining premises. We find no error in rejecting these interrogatories, and the judgment is affirmed. Marvin and Henry, JJ., concur. INDEX ACCOUNTS- Action begun on sixth anniversary of date of obligation sufficient ACTIONS- Enabling act does not authorize action against state for incarcera When appeal to court lies to member of mutual benefit association. Action ex delicto as for waste not maintainable where petition is ALIMONY- See Divorce and Alimony. ANIMALS- Property in carcasses of dead animals. Stadler v. Cleveland, 669. See Municipal Corporations. APPEAL- Alimony allowed wife notwithstanding divorce granted for wife's Interest claimed for first time in common pleas on appeal from Bankruptcy by debtor pending appeal does not stop proceeding Appeal without bond from justice court to municipal court con- Action for money judgment not appealable because discovery Wife may appeal cause for alimony without giving bond. v. Colby, 391. Colby No appeal from refusal to strike cross-petition from files. Na- No appeal from justice of the peace to insolvency court. Edgar Jurisdiction of subject matter not conferred by consent of parties. Action for possession of property in hands of receiver is appeal- Proceedings in aid of execution before J. P., appealable. Brenner APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY- See Eminent Domain. ASSESSMENTS- Abutter not estopped from enjoining collection of assessment by 702 ASSESSMENTS-Continued. Injunction lies for failure to afford abutter opportunity to build ASSIGNMENTS- Assignee of contract finishing it for original contrator may com- ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT- Validity of statute providing for attachment of debtor's personal Property other than personal earnings may be attached on claim Personal earnings of married man not attachable for groceries Attachment for work and labor sustained though trial judge sus- ATTORNEY AND CLIENT- Attorney claiming interest in judgment not party and cannot Attorney may bring action immediately upon breach of contract Payments made within four months of bankruptcy not amount- Heirs of grantor, found not bankrupt, may assert plea of res BANKS AND BANKING- Cole v. Checks and drafts deposited to be treated as money. Howe v. Actual knowledge of insolvency by officers necessary to recovery BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATIONS— When appeal to court lies to member of mutual benefit association. Appeal from refusal to pay sick benefits not provided. St. John Remedy in beneficial order exhausted prerequisite to appeal to Limitation in membership to one church, valid. Koukolicek v. Suspension from Catholic order for marriage to divorced persons. Remedy of one expelled from beneficial society. Klein v. Amazon Statute exception of five years continuous absence of spouse ex- Second marriage after five years continuous absence of first spouse BILLS AND NOTES- Competency of testimony of widow of one of makers of promissory BILLS AND NOTES-Continued. Giving judgment on joint promissory note against one maker with- Amendment of petition on promissory notes so as to sue as ex- Mere denial that plaintiff was owner of notes not denied of right to BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS— Bill of exceptions certifying all evidence except exceptions al- BONDS- Municipal bonds subject to the Longworth act. BUILDINGS- Waiver of building contract provisions as to extras. Cleveland v. Dreher v. Violation of restriction as to value of improvements to be made. Building restrictions not enforceable when without equity. Sey- CHARGE TO JURY- Instruction to jury to disregard evidence at choice erroneous. Instructions to use best ability but to do no guessing not er- Sending written requests to charge to jury in their retirement not Sufficient instruction to disregard evidence as to injury not averred. Cleveland Elec. Ry. v. Stanton, 571. Sufficient caution to jury to disregard questions improperly asked. COMPENSATION AND SALARIES- See Officers. CONFLICT OF LAWS- Conveyance to wife of husband's interest governed by Ohio law CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Appeal without bond from justice court to municipal court con- Proceedings under unconstitutional special law not invalid if con- CONTEMPT OF COURT- Incrimination question for witness and court can not commit for CONTRACTS- Uncertainty of goods to be sold, defect in contract for sale of |