PARTIAL LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS, VOL. XVI. L. K. MIHILLS, of the Akron (Ohio) .M. L. COUNTRYMAN, of the St. Paul NATHAN NEWMARK, of the San Fran- HENRY T. DECHERT, of the Philadelphia CHARLES S. LOBINGIER, of the Lincoln D. M. MICKEY, of the Editorial Staff Am. THOMAS J. MICHIE, of the Editorial Staff WILLIAM H. RUSSELL, of the Chatta- nooga Bar, and H. DENT MINOR, of the Editorial Staff Am. & Eng. Encyc. ISAAC N. PAYNE, of the Detroit (Mich.) ALBERT B. WEIMER, of the Philadelphia HENRY F. STITZELL, of the Philadelphia THOMAS P. HOWELL, of the Editorial Staff Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law. E. W. METCALFE, of the Lincoln (Neb.) EDMUND A. WHITMAN, of the Boston M. L. COUNTRYMAN, of the St. Paul HAMILTON DOUGLAS, of the Atlanta V TABLE OF TITLES AND DEFINITIONS. See index for numerous sub-titles and definitions contained in the notes. THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF LAW. MURDER.-See HOMICIDE. MUST.—The Saxon word "must" is used in statute to place beyond doubt or cavil what is intended. It is more imperative than "shall" and has not yet been twisted by judicial construction like the words "may" and "shall "into meaning something But the word "must" has not always, been construed so as to make it absolutely imperative.2 1. Eaton v. Alger, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 179-190. 2. Sections 870 and 872 of the New York Civ. Code of Procedure provide that the examination of a party to an action may be taken at the instance of an adverse party at any time before trial, and specify what the affidavit to obtain an order for such an examination must contain. Held, that it is discretionary with the judge whether he grants the order to examine, although section 873 provides that the party to whom such an order is granted must grant an order for the examination if the action is pending, etc., and that while it is said in section 873 that the judge "must" grant the order where an affidavit conforming to the previous section is presented to him, yet we do not think that the language is absolutely mandatory, and that it was intended to deprive the judge of all discretion, and that the affidavit is required to disclose the nature of the action and to set forth that the testimony of the party is material and necessary, and the judge must be able to see, from the facts stated, that the testimony is material and necessary; that if, from the nature of the action and the other facts disclosed, he can see that the examination is not necessary 16 C. of L.-] 1 for the party seeking it, then it cannot be supposed that it was the legislative intent that he should be obliged, nevertheless, to make the order. Jenkins v. Putnam, 12 N. E. Rep. 613. Section 544 N. Y. Čiv. Čode of Proc. provides that "the court . . in a proper case 'must,' upon such terms as are just," permit a supplemental answer. Held, that the court has a discretion to permit or to refuse a supplemental pleading, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably, and not capriciously or wilfully. Spears v. Mayor etc. of New York, 72 N. Y. 442. Section 1678, which is designed to provide for judicial sales, declares that if the property consists of two or more distinct buildings, farms or lots, they shall be sold separately, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Wallace v. Feeley, 61 How. (N. Y.) 225; affirmed 88 N. Y. 646. It has been held that this section was directory; but subsequently, and by chapter 682 of the laws of 1881, that section was amended by substituting the word "shall" for "must," and this would seem to be an indication on the part of the legislature to obviate the construction which has been placed on the word "must" by pro |