ITEMS OF INTEREST.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXV, Issue 168, 23 July 1901, Page 4

ITEMS OF INTEREST.

Many of tho pastorallsts who visited Sydney for the recent sheep sales d#? Clare that the outlook in the droughtaffected country is worse than it has ever been. It is pointed out that the rainfall for the half-year has only been as follows : Balranald, l.Soin ; Bourke, 2.38; Cobar, 2.69: Deniliquin, 4.26; Gongolgon, 4.25 ; Hay, 3.22 ; Hillston, 3.10 ; Louth, 2.27 ; Mount Hope, 1.10 ; Narandera, 4.34 ; Warren, 5.23 ; Wentworth, 2.59 ; Whitecliff, 2.91. Mr A. Wood, representative of Messrs Goldsbrough, Mort and Go , wtyo recently visited these districts, says that the whole of the western division and a great portion of the central division are in a worso state than they have been for very many years. Mr Wood is of opinion tjiat Ihe deplorable state of Me country is, due to, ttye drought and the influx pfv-abb'ifcs. During tho most severe part of the drought season, wherever there Is a little bit of grass the rabbits " colonise," and immediately after a fall of rain ihey quickly eat m% the sweetest and choicest grasses.

After all, London Is not to have the sensation of a great South African divorce case, about which so much has been heard, and which was hinted at some weeks ago. We now hear it has been privately settled. It may be remembered that two Dukes, an Earl, a Viscount, and a Baron were mentioned as co-respondents. Whether these gentlemen all combined together and pfonUfld down so much money is not stated. IJut thgrg is no doubt that the sum of £30,000 has foeou mU] vQ either the husband or tho offending .wife, it is generally believed that Lord Roberts refused to allow the husband to accept the cheque, so the wife is now the happy possessor of it. As she is a lady of very extravagant tastes, it will come in very useful to hor, She possesses a fairly large income from her latp father. It is said she pays £40 (200 dollars) for dresses, and wears them only onco. So, at this rate, £30,000 will not last very long.

Has a man any power to will away his dead body ? There seems to be some doubt in tho legal mind on the point. The British Medical Journal says : —" The Supreme Court of California, in a recent contest between next of kin, on the one hand, and claimant under a will, on tho other hand, fpr the possession of a corpse, ruled that a inau cannot by will 4*6' pose of that which, after his death, will be his corpse. The custody of the corpse and the right of burial belong to the next o£ kin in preference to the administrator. This view is based on the fact that the general English and

American legal authorities establish the rule that, in the absence of statutory provisions, there is no property in a dead body." This legal doctrine is so far true. In the days before the passage of the Anatomy Act "resurrection " men wore prosecuted, not for stealing corpses but the coffins, windinsheets, and other portable property connected with them. But it is, our contemporary remarks, surely a new doctrine that a man may not make a testamentary disposition of his dead body for the furtherance of science.

From Chicago come reports of a new discussion in sociology. For seme time past, the male wage earners have been troubled by the competition of women; and out of their discussions on the subject there arose a suggestion that the best remedy for the evil would be to marry off the competing girls. The plan found so much favor that, according to one report, it has been proposed that every labor union have an "official match-maker," whose duty it will be to eliminate competition in the trade by getting some young man to marry any girl who enters it. Upon that propositipn the debate is now going on.