In re Martin, 60 N. C. 153, is an opinion given at the request of the Governor as to his right to declare an office vacant and fill it by appointment. In re Hughes, 61 N. C. 57, and Cooke v. Cooke, lb. 582, are discus sions of the legal status of the State as it was left by the results of the war. State v. Farrow, 61 N. C. 161, is short, but entirely in Pearson's peculiar style. It says enough and in very few words. State v. Hay wood, 61 N. C. 376, establishes the test upon the trial of an issue of insanity. After the Convention and legislature of 1868, there were large issues of State bonds which were as sailed as fraudulent and illegal. The matter was often before the courts. It is discussed by Pearson in Galloway v. R. R., 63 N. C. 147, and other cases. Numerous cases also arose as to the validity of the acts of State and county authorities during the war, espe cially as to the validity of bonds issued by a county to provide its citizens with salt, etc. These were held void on the ground that they were issued to provide means to avoid the result of the federal blockade, and there fore in aid of the Confederacy. Leak v. Comm'rs, 64 N. C. 132. In R. R. v. Reid, 64 N. C. 155 and 226, the court held Invalid an alleged exemption of cer tain R. R. corporations from taxes. On ap peal to the United States Supreme Court this was overruled; but the present year a similar question has been raised, and the exemption, so far as drawn in question, again ruled in valid, but upon a different ground entirely (Alsbrook v. R. R., no N. C. 137), and an appeal to the United States Supreme Court has again been taken. On page 785, et seq., of the 64 N. C. are the opinions of C. J. Pearson and the other judges as to the legislative term of office, which opinion was rendered in consequence of a resolution of the General Assembly re questing it. Kane v. Haywood, 66 N. C. 1, is a discussion of the power of the court to disbar an attorney who has embezzled the money of his client. The Constitution of 1868 introduced the

Homestead provision in this State and the reformed Code of Civil Procedure. Both have given rise to numerous decisions; but they cannot be noticed here, except the ruling that the homestead was valid against action for torts in Dellinger v. Tweed, 66 N. C. 206 (Pearson and Rodman dissenting). The consequence has been the passage of many statutes making indictable acts which were previously punishable only on the civil side of the docket by actions for damages. State v. Jefferson, 66 N. C. 309, holds that the judge cannot discharge a jury by telegraphing the clerk to do so; and in State v. Branch, 68 N. C. 186, it is held that the judge can not bring the Grand Jury into open court and examine witnesses before it there. Crummen v. Bennet, 68 N. C. 494, holds that the fraudulent conveyance of a home stead does not forfeit the owner's right to claim it against creditors. In Green v. Green, 69 N. C. 294, Pearson, C. J., says : "We take this notice of the brief of Mr. B , out of respect for the learned counsel, and with the hope that it will be an admoni tion to counsel not to overlook the facts of the case in order to present ' a nice point of law.'" Cloud v. Wilson, 72 N. C. 155, is a construction of the Constitution as to the judicial tenure of office. State v. Neely, 74 N. C. 425, is an indictment for an assault with intent to commit rape, and is known as the "chicken-cock " case, from the learned dis cussion between the Chief-Justice and Judge Rodman as to that fowl. The dissenting opinion, however, has since been held correct in State v. Massey, 86 N. C. 658. The opinions of Chief-Justice Pearson will be found in forty-seven volumes, from 31 N. C. to 77 N. C. inclusive. They represent a vast amount of labor and thought, much of which is of permanent value. Many characteristic anecdotes are related of him. One only is here given. Someone when he was a young man asked him why he allowed the Bishop to confirm him, intimating that he thought the future Chief-Justice was not exactly prepared. " Well," said Pearson,