June 21, 1900.) Appeal from appellate court,
First district. Action by the Liquid Carbonic
Acid Manufacturing Company against C. F.
Adolph Convert and others for malicious prose-
cution of a civil suit. From a judgment of the
appellate court (82 Ill. App. 39), affirming a
judgment of the circuit court sustaining de-
murrers to the declaration, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. The following statement of facts is
taken from the opinion of the appellate court:
"This is an action for malicious prosecution.
The declaration alleges that the defendant
Convert had been formerly employed by the
plaintiff corporation as one of its superintend-
ents, and was discharged for insubordination
and fraud; that thereupon he organized a rival
company, and then, for the purpose of injuring
the good name and credit of the plaintiff, and
'to have said plaintiff adjudged insolvent, and
wholly ruin said plaintiff,' made an application
for the appointment of a receiver to wind up
its affairs as an insolvent corporation, and
made an affidavit that the plaintiff was in an
insolvent condition, and about to dispose of
its assets. The other defendants are charged
with having conspired with Convert for the
purposes aforesaid, and with having advised
and procured the action complained of [they
being his attorneys in the original suit]. It is
averred that a hearing of the application for a
receiver was had upon affidavits filed in sup-
port thereof, that thereupon the application
for a receiver was denied, and the prosecution
of such application then and there abandoned.
It is not alleged that the suit in which the ap-
plication was made has been determined. Ap-
parently it has not been. The declaration was
demurred to generally and specially, and, the
demurrer having been sustained, the plaintiff
elected to stand by its declaration. The suit
was dismissed and plaintiff appeals." Alden,
Latham & Young, for appellant. Israel Cow-
en and Maurice M. Houseman, for appellees.

PHILLIPS, J. The questions involved in
this case are fully determined in Smith v.
Buggy Co., 175 Ill. 619, 51 N. E. 569, adverse-
ly to the views of the appellant. It is unnec-
essary to repeat their discussion. The judg-
ment of the appellate court for the First dis-
trict is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

MYERS v. PEOPLE. (Supreme Court of
Illinois. April 17, 1900.) Appeal from crimi-
nal court, Cook county; A. N. Waterman,
Judge. John Myers was convicted of violating
Act April 22, 1899, prohibiting the use of the
national flag for commercial or advertising pur-
poses, and brings error. Reversed. John
Mayo Palmer and Robertson Palmer, for plain-
tiff in error. Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty.,
and F. L. Barnett, Asst. State's Atty., for the
People.

PER CURIAM. The question involved in
this case is the same as the question decided
in the case of Ruhstrat v. People (Ill. Sup.) 57
N. E. 41, to wit, the constitutionality of the
act of April 22, 1899, entitled "An act to pro-
hibit the use of the national flag or emblem
for any commercial purposes or as an advertis-
ing medium." The decision in the Ruhstrat
Case governs and controls the decision of this

case.

for plaintiffs in error. Chas. M. Walker, Corp.
Counsel, Armand F. Teefy, and William M.
Pindell, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The ordinance in this case
is like the ordinance condemned by this court
in Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207, 52
N. E. 54, and Davidson v. Same, 178 III. 582,
53 N. E. 367, and those cases are conclusive
here. The judgment must be reversed and
the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.

STORRS et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
(Supreme Court of Illinois. June 21, 1900.)
Error to Cook county court; O. N. Carter,
Judge. Action by the city of Chicago against
David W. Storrs and others. Judgment for
plaintiff. Defendants bring_error. Reversed.
William F. Carroll and M. F. Cure, for plain-
tiffs in error. Chas. M. Walker, Corp. Coun-
sel, Armand F. Teefy, and William M. Pindell,
for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The ordinance in this case
is like the ordinance in Lusk v. City of Chi-
cago, 176 Ill. 207, 52 N. E. 54, and Davidson
v. Same, 178 Ill. 582, 53 N. E. 367, which was
condemned in those cases. The rule announ-
ced in those cases must control here. The
judgment will be reversed and the cause will
be remanded. Reversed and remanded.

QUINLAN et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
(Supreme Court of Illinois. June 21, 1900.)
Error to Cook county court; Colaston D.
Myers, Judge. Action by the city of Chicago
against Edward Quinlan and others. Judg.
ment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
Reversed. William F. Carroll and M. F. Cure,

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
BURKET, J., not sitting.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARRI-
SON TP., ROSS COUNTY, v. FIRST NAT.
BANK OF PLYMOUTH. (No. 6,041.) (Su-
preme Court of Ohio. Jan. 30, 1900.) Error
to circuit court, Ross county. Luther B. Yap-
le, John C. Entrekin, and John P. Phillips,

DAVIES v. PARTRIDGE. (No 6,474.) (Su-
preme Court of Ohio. Jan. 30, 1900.) Error
to circuit court, Licking county. J. R. Davies,
for plaintiff in error. Kibler & Kibler, for de-
fendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of the circuit
court vacated, and cause remanded to that court,
with instructions to consider the bill of excep-
tions.

DUMM v. COLUMBUS CENT. RY. CO.
(No. 5,983.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 24,
1899.) Error to circuit court, Franklin county.
J. H. Collins and H. R. Wilson, for plaintiff
in error. Merrick & Tompkins and Geo. C.
Blankner, for defendant in error. No opinion.
Judgment affirmed.

EISMAN et al. v. TRACY. (No. 6,655.)
(Supreme Court of Ohio. Jan. 9, 1900.) Error
to circuit court, Scioto county. N. W. Evans
and Duncan Livingstone, for plaintiffs in error.
Henry Bannon, Pros. Atty., and Oscar W.
Newman, for defendant in error. No opinion.
Judgment affirmed.

EQUITABLE NAT. BANK v. JACOBS
CORDAGE CO. et al. (No. 5,911.) (Supreme
Court of Ohio. Oct. 10, 1899.) Error to su-
perior court of Cincinnati. Healy & Brannan
and Edmund K. Stallo, for plaintiff in error.
Follett & Kelley, Wilson & Herrlinger, and
Goebel & Bettinger, for defendants in error.
No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FARMERS' NAT. BANK OF FINDLEY
V. DOTY. (No. 6,085.) (Supreme Court of
Ohio. Jan. 30, 1900.) Error to circuit court,
Hancock county. Blackford & Byal and J. R.
Metzler, for plaintiff in error. J. A. & E. V.
Bope and Doty & Kibler, for defendant in
error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF NORTH BALTI-
MORE, OHIO, v. CENTRAL PRESS-BRICK
CO. et al. (No. 5,942.) (Supreme Court of
Ohio. Dec. 22, 1899.) Error to circuit court,
Wood county. Frank Taylor, E. H. Westen-
haver, and Seney, Johnson & Friedman, for
plaintiff in error. Baldwin & Harrington, H.
F. Burket, and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey,
for defendants in error. No opinion. Judg-
ment affirmed, the record not presenting the
questions argued.

HAUSER et al. v. CURRAN et al. (No.
6,388.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Oct. 17,
1899.) Error to superior court of Cincinnati.
Drausin Wulsin and Frank O. Suire, for plain-
tiffs in error. C. W. Baker, for defendants in

error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversing judg
ment at special term affirmed, and final judg-
ment for defendants in error. And, the court
being of the opinion that the evidence offered
by the defendants below did not constitute a
defense to the action, nor entitle the defend-
ants to any legal relief by way of damages,
and did not support the amended answer and
cross petition by such proof as would have
warranted the reformation of the written
agreement between the parties, and its re-
jection would not therefore be prejudicial to
the defendants, it is ordered and adjudged by
this court that the judgment of the general
term, reversing that of the special term, be,
and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs to
be taxed. And, proceeding here to render the
further judgment that the general term, as
well as the special, should have rendered upon
the admitted facts, it is ordered and adjudged
that the plaintiffs below recover of the defend-
ants below the sum of $535, with interest at
the rate of 8 per cent. from November 22, 1886,
which amounts upon October 17, 1899 (the
date of this judgment), to the sum of $1,086.63.
It is further considered that the plaintiffs be-
low recover of the defendants their costs in
the court, and in the general and special terms
of the superior court, to be taxed.

HENDERLICH v. FOX. (No. 6,070.) (Su-
preme Court of Ohio. Oct. 17, 1899.) Error
to circuit court, Harrison county. Swayne,
Hayes & Tyler and C. I. York, for plaintiff
in error. D. A. Hollingsworth, for defendant
in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

HENRY ST. CLAIR CO. et al. v. EDDINS
et al. (No. 5,709.) (Supreme Court of Ohio.
Oct. 31, 1899.) Error to circuit court, Preble
county. J. W. King and Gottschall, Craw-
ford & Limbert, for plaintiffs in error. James
A. Gilmore, J. H., S. B. & C. C. Foos, and E.
P. Vaughn, for defendants in error. No opin-
ion. Judgment affirmed.