"S Iii" is a word in LAW AND LEGAL

term is often defined in statutes and judicial decisions as meaning “tbe crime against nature," the “crimen innominatum" or as car-nal copulation, against the order of nature, by man with man, or, in the some unnatural manner, with woman or with a beast. See Cr. Code Ga. f 4352: Honselman v. People. 168 111. 172, 48 N. E. 304. But, strictly speaking, it should be used only os equivalent to “pederasty" that is, tbe sexual act as performed by s man upon tbe person of another man or a boy by penetration of the anus. See Ausman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355, 71 Am. Dec. 331. The term might also, without any great violence to ita original meaning, be so extended as to cover the same act wben performed in the same man* ner by a man upon the person of a woman. Another possible method of unilateral sexual connection, by penetration of tbe mouth (penem in orem alii immittcre, vcl penem alii tn orem reci pere) is not properly called “sodomy," but “fellation.” That this does not constitute sodomy within the meaning of a statute is held in Harvev v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. App. 199, 115 S. W. 1198; Com. v. Poindexter (Ky.) 118 S. W. 943; Lewis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 35 S. W. 372, 61 Am. St Rep. 831. on the other hand bestiality is the carnal copulation of a human being with a brute, or animal of the sub-human orders, of the opposite sex. It is not identical with sodomy, nor is it a form of sod-omy, though thc two terms are often confused in legal writings and sometimes in statutes. See Ausman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355, 71 Am. Dec. 331. Buggery is a term rarely nsed in stat-utea, but apparently including both sodomy (in the widest sense) and bestiality as above de-fincd. See Ausman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355. Tl Am. Dec. 331; Com. v. J., 21 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 025

e estate ot a deceased person, corn-prising all kinds of property owned or claimed hy him, as well as hls debts and obllga-tions, and considered as a legal entity (ac* cording to the notion of the Roman law) for certain purposes, such as collecting assets and paying debts. See Davenport v. Adler, 52 La. Ann. 263, 26 South. 836; Adams v. Aker-lund, 168 111. 632, 48 N. E. 454; Quarles v. Clayton, 87 Tenn. 308, 10 S. W. 505, 3 L. R. A. 170; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 31 S. W. 797, 33 L. R. A. 576; Blake v. McCartney, 3 Fed. Cas. 596; In re Henden’s Estate, 52 Cal. 298