« ПретходнаНастави »
Om78(1) (Ky.) Under Ky. St. 88 1720, 1835, / only to statutory funds classed by article 1438, and Acts 1916, c. 72, $$ 3, 9, clerk of county and not to those raised by taxation under court, by virtue of his office clerk of fiscal court, Const. art. 8, § 9:-Carroll v. Williams, 202 is not entitled to fee of 30 cents for each war-/S, W. 504. rant issued against county treasurer on claims Rev. St. 1911, art. 1440, empowering the in excess of $5 allowed by fiscal court.-Nuet-commissioners' court to transfer money from zel v. Barr, 202 S. W. 499.
one fund to another, even if applicable to
money raised by taxation, would not permit it III, PROPERTY, CONTRACTS, AND
where levy was ostensibly for one purpose, but LIABILITIES.
really for the transfer.-Id.
Const, art. 8, § 9, as to taxes for various (B) Contracts.
purposes, held not only to control the raising Ono 123 (Tex.Civ.App.) A surety bond to se
but the expenditure of the funds; and so not cure the performance of a contract to build a
to allow transfer of those raised for one purcourthouse for a county held a bond of indem- pose to another purpose.-Id. nity to the county alone, and not to give ma-m 196(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) If proposition on terialmen a right of action thereon in their own which county bonds were voted specified the names.-Equitable Surety Co. v. Mosher Mfg. roads to be improved, commissioners' court Co., 202 S. W. 788.
could be enjoined by taxpayer from diverting
funds to other roads.-Grayson County v. HarIV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC
rell, 202 S. W. 160.
COURTS. em 149 (Tex. Civ.App.) Const, art. 11, § 7, pro-See Arbitration and Award; Clerks of Courts ; hibiting incurring of debt unless a tax is provided for interest and sinking fund, is a re
Continuance; Criminal Law, 95; Elecstriction and also a limitation on county debts.
tions, Oma 275; Equity, On39; Insane Per-Lasater v. Lopez, 202 S. W. 1039.
sons, Om103; Judges; Justices of the Peace;
Prohibition ; Trial, 383, 388. A sum contracted to be paid a contractor for work on roads, to be paid for in interest-bearing warrants, is a "debt" within Const. art. 1. NATURE, EXTENT, AND EXERCISE 11, § 7, restricting and limiting county debts.
OF JURISDICTION IN GENERAL. -Id.
ww7 (Ky.) An action for death of servant is That the Legislature has provided means for transitory, and accident occurring on governprocuring a road fund does not impliedly pro- ment property in the state can be sued for in hibit the commissioners' court from going into state courts.-Henry Bickel Co. v. Wright's debt to build roads under Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Adm'x, 202 S. W. 672. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2241.-Id.
Om 18 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. $ 6060, the 164 (Tex.Civ.App.) The commissioners! chancery court of one county, in an action by court of a county can, under Vernon's Sayles' one party against a number of parties, affectAnn. Civ. St. 1914, art. 2241, subd. 8, issue ing real estate lying in the county and in othinterest-bearing warrants maturing annually er counties, acquired jurisdiction, and could in future years, limited only by Const. art. 11, order sale only of the land within its own § 7, in spite of articles 605, 610, relating to county.-Harris v. Smith, 202 S. W. 244. bonds.-Lasater v. Lopez, 202 S. W. 1039.
Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. II. ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANIZA2241, empowers the commissioners' court of
TION, AND PROCEDURE IN county which has not adopted article 6966 to
GENERAL. build a road and create an indebtedness to be paid by interest-bearing warrants in future
(A) Creation and Constitution, and Court
Otllcers. years, although a bond issue under articles 605, 610, for such purpose has been voted down in m47 (Ky.) Three elements are essential to an election.-Id.
a duly constituted court, being time, place, and O 166 (Tex.Civ.App.) Instruments reciting
an officer, duly clothed by law with the authat they are warrants issued to contractor
thority administer justice.-Stevens for labor and material, and constituting or
Young, 202 S. W. 481. ders upon the county treasurer to pay such contractor, and intended to be warrants, are
(B) Terms, Vacations, Place and Time of simply warrants and not "bonds" within stat
Holding Court, Courthouses, and
Accommodations. utes regulating issuance of bonds.-Lasater v. Lopez, 202 S. W. 1039.
Om64 (4) (Ky.) Where judge entered order That warrants for county improvements re- calling special term to try election contest, but cited that the work had been done did not could not attend, and by telephone directed add anything to them, or estop the county clerk to enter order submitting the case and from the defense that it had not been done, or continuing term to a later date, when he apturn the warrants into bonds within statutes peared and tried the case, there was no term regulating their issuance.-Id.
held on the first date set and such term lapsed Om 168(4) (Ark.) Acts 1917, p. 849, § 8, au- and ended, so that any order then or there, thorizing a county judge to pay certain amounts after made was void.-Stevens v. Young, 202 for forbearance of holders of county warrants S. W. 481. in presenting the same for payment, contra-Ow66(1) (Ky.) Where the judge is absent venes Const. 1874, art. 16, § 1.-Gould v. Da- from a special term, the clerk can, under Ky. vis, 202 S. W. 37.
St. & 971, subsec. 2, only certify the facts to en 183(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Rev. St. 1911, the Governor, who may appoint a special judge, arts. 606, 627-633, the purpose of an election but an attempted order adjourning the term for issuance of county bonds for roads can be to a future day was void.--Stevens v. Young, determined only from order of commissioners' | 202 S. W. 481. court for election and from the notices there- m74 (Ark.) In prosecution for assault with for, and commissioners' campaign statements intent to rape, adjournment of the court, at the cannot be considered.-Grayson County v. Har- request of the prosecuting attorney, to a horell, 202 S. W. 160.
tel, wherein prosecuting witness was confined en 195 (Tex.) Rev. St. 1911, art. 1440, em- by illness, for the purpose of taking her tespowering the commissioners' court to transfer timony, against defendant's objection was ermoney from one fund to another, held to apply ror.-Mell v. State, 202 S. W. 33.
(D) Rules of Decision, Adjudications, ma 202(5) (Mo.App.) Creditor of decedent or Opinions, and Records.
other interested party cannot wait until final Cm91(1) (Mo. App.) The appellate court must settlement of administration of estate is made follow the last ruling opinion of the Supreme and approved, and then appeal from all matCourt on the question of what constitutes in ters that have transpired during administraterstate commerce. - Mergenthaler Linotype Co. tion; appeals given by Rev. St. 1909, $ 289, v. Hays, 202 S. W. 300.
being seriatim, not in solido.-Keet & Rountree
Dry Goods Co. v. Williams, 202 S. W. 620. 91 (1) (Mo.App.) Appellate court is bound Creditor's appeal does not bring up entire to follow last decision of Supreme Court even probate proceedings as to decedent's estate, in division, though earlier decision in banc but only such parts as relate to particular deciwas to contrary.-Lampe v. United Rys. Co. sion appealed from.-Id. of St. Louis, 202 S. W. 438.
92 (Ark.) Statements in opinion, respon VI. COURTS OF APPELLATE JURISsive to question put and treated by court as
DICTION. decisive, are not dicta, but authority.-State v. Bank of Commerce, 202 S. W. 834.
(B) Courts of Particular States, Om 95(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) In applying laws of om 231(1) (Mo.App.) If reasonable doubt es. another state authorizing recovery for mental ists touching jurisdiction of Supreme Court on anguish for negligence in delivery of an inter-appeal, proper course is to transfer case to state telegraph message, held that a decision of that court; it having ultimate decision in rethe Supreme Court of this state, that state laws gard thereto.-Fred A. H. Garlichs Agency Co. were not superseded by Congress, contrary to V. Anderson, 202 S. W. 260. a decision in the other state, would be fol-231(4) (Mo.App.) Where decision of Court lowed and recovery allowed.--Western Union of Appeals announces rule contrary to that Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 202 S. W. 1049.
previously announced by another Court of Apem107 (Mo.App.) Where Supreme Court cites peals, first court must transfer case to Supreme former opinion in support of its decision, such Court for final adjudication.-Donohue citation is judicial construction of former opin- Southwestern Surety Ins. Co., 202 S. W. 272. ion.-Lampe v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, em 231(6) (Mo.App.) Where judgment was for 202 S. W. 438.
amount within jurisdiction of Court of Ap
peals, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of III. COURTS OF GENERAL ORIGINAL appeal unless constitutional question has been JURISDICTION.
raised, and Court of Appeals has none if such
question was raised and kept alive.-Berry v. (A) Grounds of Jurisdiction in General.
Majestic Milling Co., 202 S. W. 622. 121(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Const. art. 5, em 231(21) (Mo.App.) Only when validity of $ 16, county court has jurisdiction to enjoin statute of, or authority exercised under, United injury threatened to property alleged to be States, is' drawn in question, is jurisdiction of $400.-City of Brownsville v. Fernandez, 202 appeal' lodged in Supreme Court of Missouri by S. W. 112.
Const. art. 6, § 12.-Hawkins v. St. Louis & C 121(3) (Tex.Civ. App.) The district court San Francisco Ry, Co., 202 S. W. 1060. is without jurisdiction of an action for conver-om 231(23) (Mo.A pp.) În minor's action for insion, based on seizure of property, under an juries under Laws 1911, p. 136, § 1726b, proinvalid execution, for exemplary damages in hibiting employment of children under 16 in sum of $50, and for an injunction restraining mills, company in answer having challenger! sale, as the amount involved is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court.-Ram- Const. art. 4, § 28, held, that jurisdiction of
constitutionality of section violative of sel v. Miller, 202 S. W. 1050.
appeal was in Supreme Court.-Berry v. MaCam 121(5) (Tex. Civ. App.) Under Vernon's jestic Milling Co., 202 S. W. 622. Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 4977, interest, 231 (25) (Mo.App.) Judgment dismissing although prayed for, was not recoverable in suit bill in two counts, one seeking divorce and for damages under contract providing for $500 custody of children, second asking to have deed liquidated damages for breach, and district set aside and canceled, etc., held to involve title court bad no jurisdiction, amount in controver
to real estate, question of divorce having been sy being exactly $500.--Escue v. Hartley, 202 practically abandoned on trial, so that jurisdic. S. W. 159.
tion of appeal was in Supreme Court.-Powell em 122 (Tex.Civ.App.) In suit to rescind con v. Powell, 202 S. W. 601. tract for purchase of land and to amount paid as part of price, (sough undisputed controversy to give Supreme Court jurisdie
recover231(49) (Mo.App.) Relative to amount in evidence showed such part was only $400, petition on appeal, form or nature of proceeding tion alleging it was $500, sum sued_for was within jurisdiction of district court.-Rascoe v.
is immaterial, where right in dispute is suscepMyre, 202 S. W. 780.
tible of pecuniary valuation in excess of $7,500.-Fred A. H. Garlichs Agency Co. v. An
derson, 202 S. W. 260. V. COURTS OF PROBATE JURISDIC-231(50) (Mo.App.) Under constitutional TION.
provision giving Supreme Court appellate juem 198 (Mo.App.) In Missouri, probate courts risdiction when amount in controversy exceeds have no inherent powers, their powers being $7,500, action to enjoin insurance agent from entirely derivative, and they exercising such carrying on business in violation of a contract powers only as are conferred by or implied conditioned that he should not carry on busiin legislation.-Peck v. Fillingham's Estate, ness for five years after termination of con202 S. W. 465.
tract hold to involve a right in dispute exceedThough probate courts, in administering jus- ing $7,500.-Fred A. H. Garlichs Agency Co. tice in proceedings over which they have ju- v. Anderson, 202 S. W. 260. risdiction, may apply equitable and common-om247(1) (Tex.) Supreme Court has jurisdiclaw principles in reaching their conclusions, tion to grant writs of error in appeals from inthey have no common-law or chancery juris- terlocutory orders granting injunctions under diction.--Id.
Vernon's Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1914, arts. 4644, Cw202(5) (Mo.) On appeal from order of pro- 4645, 4646, such not being of that class of bate court, circuit court acquires jurisdiction cases in which determination of the Court of only over matters litigated and fought out in Civil Appeals is final under article 1521 as probate court.-In re Campbell's Estate, 202 amended 1913.-Houston Oil Co. of Texas v.
VIII. CONCURRENT AND CONFLICT., ty by reason of the statute which fixes that
ING JURISDICTION, AND COMITY. place as the location of the Court of Civil Ap(A) Courts of Same State, and Transfer of peals.-Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93.
Causes. m.472(4) (Mo.App.) Suit to construe testa- (B) Facts in Issue and Relevant to Issues,
and Res Gestæ. trix's will as to her intention whether or not incumbrances on realty devised should be paid Om 338(7) (Tenn.). In prosecution for murder, off out of funds of estate must originate in held, that record' in a divorce case brought circuit, not in probate, court.-Peck v. Filling- against defendant should not be read to jury, ham's Estate, 202 S. W. 465.
since charges made in bill were calculated to prejudice defendant's case.--Dickason v. State,
202 S. W. 922. COVENANTS.
em361(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) If defendant introducII. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA
ed isolated portions of witness' examining trial TION.
testimony as impeachment or in contradiction
of her testimony on final trial, state had right (D) Covenants Running with Land. to introduce such portions of her examining Ew71 (Tex.Civ.App.) Covenant of warranty trial testimony as were explanatory of those runs with the estate till broken by eviction. - put in evidence by defendant, but such portions Shannon v. Childers, 202 S. W. 1030.
as did not throw light on those introduced by
defendant would not be admissible.-Earnest v. III. PERFORMANCE OR BREACH. State, 202 S. W. 739.
0100(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Complete failure of 363 (Ark.) It was competent for one who title does not amount to mere shortage in was not present at killing, but was in hearing acreage, for which action for breach of cove- distance, to testify as to what he heard said durnant will not lie.-Shannon v, Childers, 202 s. ing shooting, although he could not identify W. 1030.
speaker.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49. C 102(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Action of state in 365 (3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for asforfeiting à survey which entirely conflicted sault to murder, that after assaulted person with prior surveys amounts to a constructive had received injuries, and had fallen, his brotheviction, breaching a covenant of warranty in a
er engaged in encounter with defendant, durdeed thereof.--Shandon v. Childers, 202 S. W. ing which defendant's brother entered and stab1030.
bed assaulted person's brother, was admissi
ble as res gestæ.-White v. State, 202 S. W. COVERTURE.
737. See Husband and Wife; Limitation of Actions, Em368(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for agOm73.
gravated assault, testimony held admissible as CREDIBILITY.
showing acts and declarations of persons pres
ent and participating in difficulty, on ground of See Evidence, Em588; Witnesses, Omw 327– res gastæ.-Bennett v. State, 202 S. W. 730. 388. CREDITORS.
(E) Best and Secondary and Demonstra.
tive Evidence. See Bankruptcy; Fraudulent Conveyances. em 404(1) (Ky.) In a prosecution under Ky.
St. § 1214, for seduction under promise of marCRIMINAL LAW.
riage, held, that exhibition of a child born to See Abortion; Arrest; Assault and Battery ; | monwealth, 202 S. W. 896.
prosecutrix was incompetent.-Jordan y. ComBail, Om65; Burglary ; Continuance; Constitutional Law, em 263'; Costs : Courts.
am 404(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for as74: Disorderly House;' Elections, 311- sault to murder brother of assaulted person 330; Forgery; Gaming; Homicide; Incest; exhibit it to jury, indicating where it was cut
was improperly permitted to take off coat and Indictment and Information; Intoxicating Liquors, Cw205-239; Judges, w56; Lar: and blood which resulted from wounds he receny; Nuisance, en92: Perjury;: Rape; State, 202 S. W. 737.
ceived from defendant's brother.--White V. Robbery; Seduction; Vagrancy; Witnesses.
404(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant in IV. JURISDICTION.
murder case set up self-defense, the knife with Om95 (Tex.Cr.App.) Courts of this state have which the killing was done was admissible to no jurisdiction to punish Mexican soldiers kill show intent, under Vernon's Ann. Pen. Code ing a United States soldier incidental to a bat- 1916, art 1147, where not shown to be a deadtle in Texas between Mexican and United States ly weapon per se.- Houston v. State, 202 S. W. troops during a state of war between this coun
84. try and Mexico.-Arce v. State, 202 S. W. 951. Om 404(4) (Tex.Cr. App.) It is only permissible
to introduce garments worn by one who has reX. EVIDENCE.
ceived injuries, when the evidence serves to il(A) Judicial Notice, Presumptions,
lustrate or solve some question in controversy.
and Burden of Proof.
-White v. State, 202 S. W. 737. 304(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) The courts know as a matter of history of current events attending (F) Admissions, Declarations, and Hearthe recent trouble between the United States and Mexico wherein a column of troops under mm 407(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where remark Gen. Pershing invaded that country and inci- made in defendant's presence which he underdental fights and battles occurred in connection stood and which called for reply, his silence or with the invasion.--Arce v. State, 202 S. W. acquiescence may be shown if he was not under 951.
arrest.-White v. State, 202 S. W. 737. It is a matter for judicial cognizance and m408 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for sellknowledge that the battle at San Ygnacio ing intoxicating liquor in violation of statute, which occurred during the recent trouble be- evidence that accused told witness, a grand tween this country and Mexico was never dis- juryman, he had sold beer and would plead guilavowed by the Mexican de facto government. ty if witness would aid him in getting suspend-Id.
ed sentence, held not inadmissible, as being Cw304(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) The court judicially compromise proposition.--Goss v. State, 202 S. knows that the city of Dallas is in Dallas coun- / W. 956.
B418(1) (Ark.) Although there was no direct time of affray involved made remark indicat. evidence that defendant in criminal case heard ing murderous intent does not render admissia remark made by a third person, it was admis- ble, on second trial, testimony of absent witsible where another. testified that defendant ness as to such remark.-White v. State, 202 could have heard it if he had been listening.-S. W. 737. Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.
543(1) (Ark.) Where it was undisputed that Cw419, 420(10) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecu- defendant shot deceased, and deceased was untion for murder, testimony of deceased's wife der arrest and present at hearing before coronthat, on the day of the killing, an eyewitness er, to ascertain whether killing was lawful, and told her that defendant had killed her husband had opportunity to cross-examine witness, eriand "that we tried to get him not to do it,” dence taken at such hearing could be read on held hearsay and improperly admitted.--Ander- | trial, where witnesses were absent.-Kelley v. son v. State, 202 S. W. 944.
State, 202 S. W. 49. Cm 419, 420 (11), (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution 543(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In absence of predifor murder of deputy sheriff while preventing cate laid for testimony of absent witness on accused's escape, evidence of third person who former trial by showing his death or removal, had conversation with sheriff over the tele- it was not competent to reproduce former tesphone at the request of deceased about the timony.-White v. State, 202 S. W. 737. propriety of arresting accused was inadmissible as hearsay.-Burkhardt v. State, 202 S. 543(2) (Ark.) Where sheriff and witness tesW. 513.
tified that another witness had gone to Louisi
ana, and that the latter had received letter from (G) Acts Declarations of Conspira- | him, absence of witness from state was suffitors and Codefendants.
ciently established to justify reading of his evi. Como 423(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) Statements of another bence given before coroner.-Kelley v. State, prior to commission of offense are admissible, 202 S. W. 49. where made under circumstances tending to 547(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for show he and defendant were coconspirators.- murder of a daughter, refusal to admit in eviCannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83.
dence transcribed stenographer's notes taken Cm424(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Declarations of cocon by, a private stenographer of defendant's counspirator, in defendant's absence after completion sel at the examining trial showing that a witof crime, are inadmissible, unless they are res
ness' statement as to what accused said with gestæ, or made while declarant was in posses- the same as testimony at trial, held not error.
reference to killing whole family was not just sion of the fruits of the crime.-Cannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83.
-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.
en 547(4) (Ark.) Evidence taken on hearing be (1) Opinion Evidence.
fore coroner and taken down in shorthand and
transcribed need not be identified by stenogra. Cm 448(3) (Ark.) Testimony by one, who went on scene of murder after crime, that one bullet pher, but may be identified by some one who went wild, was not incompetent being merely dence.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.
was present and can recall substance of evi. a description of the situation and not attempt to prove intent of accused.--Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.
(M) Weight and Sufficiency. 448(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) There being evi-564(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held suffidence that accused was suddenly attacked by cient to show venue of a burglary with intent to deceased and companions at night, accused commit theft.-Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93. could testify that he did not intend to kill, but only used his knife as a means of defense and XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTINto free himself from attack.--Lozano v. State,
UANCE. 202 S. W. 510.
On 594(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution
for (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code- slander by imputing want of chastity, defendant fendants.
held entitled to continuance for unavoidable ab511(1) (Ark.) Corroborating circumstances sence of witness under subpæna, injured in held sufficient, with accomplice's testimony to automobile accident while on his way to attend warrant conviction of arson.-Shaw v. State, trial.—Lemcke v. State, 202 S. W. 744. 202 S. W. 704.
em 597(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where evidence
that defendant assisted in a burglary by hauling (K) Confessions.
off and concealing the goods, there was no erOm 519(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for ror in refusing a continuance on the ground selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, that the other, if present, would testify that he testimony that defendant had told witness, a committed the burglary.-Coprew v. State, 202 grand juryman, that he had sold beer to prose- S. W. 81. cuting witness, and that he would plead guilty 598(2) (Ark.) To entitle defendant in crim. if witness would aid him in getting, suspended inal case to a continuance on account of ab. sentence, held not inadmissible as involuntary confession.-Goss v. State, 202 S. W. 956.
sence of witnesses, he must show proper dili.
gence to secure their attendance.-Sheptine v. cm 536 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused in at- State, 202 S. W. 225. tempting to avoid arrest for burglary shot the w598(6) (Tex.Cr. App.) Where an indictment deputy sheriff, his confession to the burglary after arrest on both charges was admissible asked for a known witness until six days be
was returned in September and process was not in the prosecution for murder, if material.- fore the trial in November, there was not suffiBurkhardt v. State, 202 S. W. 513. In prosecution for murder of deputy sheriff tinuance.-Coprew v. State, 202 S. W. 81.
cient diligence to entitle defendant to a conwho attempted to prevent escape of accused after arrest for burglary, accused's subsequent mw 600(1) (Ky.). Where accused was permitted confession to the crime of burglary was admis- to read to the jury his statement of what absible on the question of motive.-Id.
sent witnesses would testify to, it was not
error to refuse a continuance on the ground of (L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination absence of such witnesses.-Davis v. Commonor at Former Trial.
wealth, 202 S. W. 633. 539(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In view of Code Cr. w 608 (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to esProc. art. 790, providing defendant may testify, tablish necessary diligence, to entitle accused but failure shall not be held against him, to continuance on the ground of absence of wit. defendant's silence on first trial when witness nesses.-Davis v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W.
(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen
eral. (B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General.
Om737(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) If there is issue as to w633(1) (Ky.) Prosecutrix may have with whether defendants acted together as princiher in court a child born as a result of an al- pals, court should submit question to jury for leged seduction.-Jordan v. Commonwealth, 202 their decision under appropriate instructions.S. W. 896.
Bennett v. State, 202 S. W. 730. cm 656(9) (Tex.Cr. App.) The court's conduct, w741(1). (Ky.) Where there is any evidence, during a prosecution for murder, in examining however slight, tending to show guilt of acone of the witnesses for the state and eliciting cused, case should go to jury.—Board of Coundamaging testimony by reminding witness of cil of City of Danville v. Commonwealth, 202 S. the contents of a written statement witness had W. 858. inade, tending to lead jury to think court con-w761(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for insidered defendant guilty, was improper under cest, charge that if jury believed that parties the statute.--Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 944.
were uncle and niece they would be within
statute was not erroneous as assuming facts.(C) Reception of Evidence.
Griffin v. State, 202 S. W. 87. Ow662(8) (Ky.) Request by one accused of Ow762(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for murder to be tried before the same jury and on abortion, trial court violated statute in exthe same facts as his codefendant, who had pressing before jury opinion with reference to previously been tried, held a waiver of defend- testimony of victim as to why she had proant's right to confront the state's witness.- cured certain money.-Earnest v. State, 202 S. Bonar v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 676.
W. 739. Om 665(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where murder trial 763, 764(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for hog was attended by great crowd, so that assist- theft, it was proper to refuse, as a comment ance of sheriff in keeping order was necessary, on the weight of the evidence, an instruction trial court properly exercised discretion in re- that if defendant turned some hogs loose near fusing to have sheriff placed under rule with L.'s house, and L., under the belief that hogs other witnesses.—Vestal v. State, 202 S. W. 94. of the complaining witness were such bogs, 675 (Ark.) There was no error in homicide fed them, these facts are insufficient to convict; case in not allowing witness to testify as to the theory of the state being that defendant point on which she had already fully corroborat- had taken the hogs, re-marked them, and turned defendant.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.
ed them loose on the range near L's house.F 683(1) (Tenn.) One accused of crime, hav. Sheptine v. State, 202 s. w. 225. ing testified in his own behalf and left the Om763, 764(17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge as to stand, may again testify in rebuttal concerning testimony by defense witness that evidence of matters brought out by testimony of the state. his previous indictment, trial, and acquittal -Arnold v. State, 202 S. W. 935.
for the same killing "was admitted
for the sole purpose of affecting the credibility (D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to
of the witness,
and you shall considStrike Out, and Exceptions.
er it for no other purpose," was erroneous, as
a charge upon weight of evidence.-Lozano y, 695(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In bill reciting that State, 202 S. W. 510. testimony of a prior shooting was objected to upon ground that it occurred four or five years (G) Necessity, Requisites, and sufficiency prior to shooting in instant case, ground of objection was not a statement of fact, but a 779 (Tex.Cr.App.) If conspiracy is shown reason for objection.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.
or defendants acted together, court is author
ized to charge on that phase of law, though Om695(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objections on criminal charge would be erroneous if such evidence trial to evidence as "incompetent and prejudi- was not in case.-Bennett v. State, 202 S. W. cial" or "immaterial, irrelevant, and incompe- 730. tent" are too general for consideration if the w789(2) (Ark.) Instruction, "By reasonable evidence could have been admissible for any doubt is meant that evidence of defendant's purpose.-Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93.
guilt must be clear and convincing and fully
satisfy your minds and consciences, but it does (E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.
not mean a mere imaginary, possible, or capw719(1) (Tex.Cr. App.) In prosecution of for- tious doubt,” is sufficiently affirmative.-Kelley mer train porter for burglary, argument that
v. State, 202 S. W. 49. the oldest train porter on a certain railroad on 804(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statute is mandatory had been sent to the penitentiary was improp- that charges given in criminal cases be certified. er.-Ditto v. State, 202 S. W. 735.
-Payne v. State, 202 S. W. 958. Cm720(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the evidence m8116) (Mo.App.) Giving of cautionary infully justified reference to accused's acts in struction on testimony of defendant in crimthrowing rocks at deceased just before the inal case is reversible error.-State v. Clark, murder, that the county attorney imputed such 202 S. W. 259. testimony to the wrong witness was not error. Car 814(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge submitting case -Redick v. State, 202 S. W. 743.
should conform to indictment, charging, as au723(1) (Ky.) Exhibition of child born thorized by Vernon's Ann, Code Cr. Proc. 1916, to prosecutris being incompetent under Ky. St. art. 456, intent to kill "some person to the $ 1214, it was reversible error to allow the com grand jury unknown," and should not authormonwealth's attorney to take it and, holding it ize conviction on intent to kill "any' person.in his arms, comment on the wrong done to it Cannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83. by its father denying a promise to marry.-eww823(4) (Ark.) Instruction defining larceny Jordan v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 896. as the felonious stealing, taking, “or” carrying C730(13) (Ark.) In prosecution for hog theft, away personal property, held not misleading, in statement in good faith by prosecuting attor- view of another instruction given.-Banks v. ney in opening that defendant had also changed State, 202 S. W. 43. marks on other hogs, which were missing, was w823(6) (Ark.) Instruction as to self-defense, not prejudicial where the jury was admonished. which did not refer to reasonable doubt or less -Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.
offenses than murder, should be considered in For cases in Dec Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER