Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal

more »

... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS RECENT IMPORTANT DECISIONS dissenting), the act of I90o applies to property acquired before that act as well 'as to that acquired after and therefore the appellee acquired no title. Theresa Arnett et al. v. D. M. Reade (19II), 31 ,Sup. Ct. 425. The Territorial Court of New Mexico from which this 'case is appealed held that the }husband had vested rights which would 'be taken away if the statute were allowed to apply to land previously acquired. A similar rule was announced in Spreckels v. Spreckels, II6 Cal. 339, 48 Pac. 228, 36 L. R. A. 497, 58 Am. St. Rep. I70, and under a somewhat similar statute though not concerning community property, in Castlebury v. Maynard, 95 N. C. 281. In Peck v. Walton, 26 Vt. 82, the court in considering a statute of the same general nature, also not regarding community property, reached the conclusion announced in the principal case. For a discussion of the constitutionality of an inheritance tax upon community property see 9 MICH. L. REV. 519. CORPORATIONS---CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY-IMPUTATION OF INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE.-An employment officer of defendant, a railroad construction company, 'contracted with one Carney to furnish laborers for the company's camps. Carney and ihis associates and subordinates, in carrying out this contract, directly procured the importation and migration of contract alien laborers from !Mexico into the United States. This was a misdemeanor under an act of Congress which further provided that "the persons, partnership, company or corporation * * * knowingly assisting, encouraging, or soliciting" such importation or migration, shall pay $Iooo for each offense. 34 Stiat. at 'L. 898; Fed. 'Stat. Ann. Supp. 1907, p. 96 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 447). The United States sued to recover $45,ooo penalty under the act. Defendant denied all "knowledge, assent, or ratification" of the acts o'f Carney and his associates. Held, thiat "knowledge is the principal and indispensable ingredient in the offence;" that a corporation is capable of forming a guilty intent and * * * of having the knowledge necessary, provided the officers * * * capable of voicing the 'will of the corporation have such knowledge or intent; and that the question was properly submitted to the jury, under instructions, by the trial court. Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States (I9II), -Ariz. -, 114 Pac. 955.