The court was unanimous. The Indiana case is Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer, 129 Ind. 404. The conclusion is as follows : — "So far as we know, the courts of this State have never attempted to exercise such a power, and we are of opinion that no such power is inher ent in the courts. We think the better reason is against the existence of such a right, and in the absence of some statute upon the subject we do think the courts should attempt to compel litigants, against their will, to submit their persons to the ex amination of strangers for the purpose of furnishing evidence to be used on the trial of a cause. Should a litigant willingly submit, there could be no legal objection to such an examination; and should he refuse to submit to a reasonable examination, his conduct might possibly be proper matter for com ment; but this is quite a different matter from compelling him, against his will, to submit his per son to the examination of strangers." The court was unanimous. Reliance was placed on the Botsford case; but the decision was earlier than that in the McQuignan case. But although it is permitted to the claim ant of damages for corporeal injuries to ex hibit his hurt to the jury, if he chooses, he will not be allowed to make an indecent ex posure. Thus, in Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282, the appellate court lectured the trial court very severely for suffering the plaintiff to " uncover and exhibit to the jury his organ of generation," although the op posing counsel did not object to it. But he may expose a wound to show that pus still flows. McMaier v. Ry. Co., 51 Hun, 644. In Schneider v. /Etna Life Ins. Co.. 32 La. Ann. 1049; s. c. 36 Am. Rep. 276, it

was held that in an action on a policy of life insurance, where the issue was on the death of the insured, the insurer is not bound to bring him bodily before the court; The court said : — "There was nothing whatever in these objec tions, and they were rightly overruled. If the person whose identity was in issue had been himself a party to the action as claimant of some right based on such identity, as in the famous Tichborne case, the opposite party might have demanded a view of his person and the oppor tunity of personal examination in presence of the court. Such was not the case here. The person whose identity was in question was not a party to this suit, and was not within reach of its process, and was in no manner subject to its orders. If he had been within the reach of process of the court, plaintiff would have had the same right to invoke it to compel his attendance that the de fendant had. As he was not within reach of its process, neither party had power to enforce his attendance; and the law imposes impossible duties on no one. A free man is not subject to the possession and control of another, his body cannot be offered or filed in evidence, and he is not to be treated like a document of which profert or oyer may be claimed." Other living human bodies. In a recent action in the Superior Court, in Boston, for dislocation of the collar-bone, the plaintiff's experts having testified that such an injury in most cases is permanent, the defence offered to produce three persons who had suffered exactly similar injuries, and who would visibly demonstrate to the jury that their recovery was complete. This was excluded.

A NEW YORK WITCHCRAFT CASE. By John Douglas Lindsay. IN October, 1665, Ralph Hall and Mary, his wife, were put upon trial in the Court of Assize held in New York, for witch craft. The indictment against the husband was as follows : —

"The Constable and Overseers of the Town ot Seatallcott, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, upon Long Island, Do Present for our Sovereign Lord the King, That Ralph Hall, of Seatallcott aforesaid, upon y* 25,h day of December, being Christmas