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 that this witness was incompetent to give evidence of the facts offered to be proven by him. Error was based on this ruling. Held, that the rejection of the defendant's offer was sufficient to base error on-nothing appearing on the record to show that it was not made in good faith-even though no questions were asked the witness. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Castle (1909), -C. C. A., 8th Cir. -, 172 Fed. 84I. The adjudications upon this point cannot be reconciled. The rule established in the U. S. courts seems to be in accord with that stated in the principal case. Scotland County v. Hill, II2 U. S. 183, 5 Sup. Ct. 93, 28 L. Ed. 692. It, however, is in conflict with a number of state court decisions which hold that the mere offer to prove certain facts, without putting a witness on thestand and asking him questions tending to bring out these facts, is insufficient to assign error on. In Chi. City R. Co. v. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, the rule is stated in the following words, "If appellant desired to make the contention it now makes, it should have at least put a witness upon the stand, and proceeded far enough till the question relative to the point, it is now said it was desired to offer evidence upon, was reached and then put the question and allowed the court to rule upon it, and then offered what was expected to be proved by the witness, if he was not allowed to answer the question asked." To the same effect see Stevens v. Newman, 68 Ill.