Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/516

 490 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. yllabm. 209 U. 8. ricer are clearly defined in the statutes to which reference is made. The intimidating effect of the acts of appellee upon the 'deal* ers in the syrups is set out and the detriment resulting there- from to appellants detailed. It is manifest from this summary of the allegations of the bill that this is not a suit against the State. Crnninham v. Michigan, 631. It is not a suit, as was Arbu/e v. B/ack/mm, supra, to restrain a criminal prosecution. Indeed, the bill alleges that a criminal prosecution was invited by appellant sad refused by appellee, and refused, it is alleged, to serve the purpose of what the bill denominates a "crusade" against the syrups of sppellants, and in dereliction of duties enjoined by the statutes of the State. Dwne rersd and t case ranan&d /or ]urther proain. MR. JUSTICE HRLN concur in the decree. MATTER OF ALBERT N. MOORE, AN INFANT
 * PETITIONER.

PETITION P0R WRIT OF MANDAM'US. .qo. 17, OwJln&L A-,d Mm,,d2 9, 1008.Deeldmi ApeJl 0, !8. In itl' , the filing by the defendant of a petition for removal, the filing by th plaintiff s2ter removal of an amended complaint ar the giving of a ipulation for contlnuanee, amotmt to thz aeoeptance of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. A next friend may select one of everal tribunals in which the infmat's caze shall be tried, and may elect to accept the jurisdiction of the Federal eourt to which the cae may be removed. While consent calmot oonfer on a Federal cour jurisdiction of a case of which no Federal court would have jurisdiction, either party my waive

�