Слике страница
PDF
ePub

418(1) (Ark.) Although there was no direct evidence that defendant in criminal case heard a remark made by a third person, it was admissible where another testified that defendant could have heard it if he had been listening.Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.

419, 420(10) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for murder, testimony of deceased's wife that, on the day of the killing, an eyewitness told her that defendant had killed her husband and "that we tried to get him not to do it," held hearsay and improperly admitted.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 944.

time of affray involved made remark indicating murderous intent does not render admissible, on second trial, testimony of absent witness as to such remark.-White v. State, 202 S. W. 737.

543(1) (Ark.) Where it was undisputed that defendant shot deceased, and deceased was under arrest and present at hearing before coroner, to ascertain whether killing was lawful, and had opportunity to cross-examine witness, evidence taken at such hearing could be read on trial, where witnesses were absent.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

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 testified that another witness had gone to Louisiana, and that the latter had received letter from him, absence of witness from state was sufficiently established to justify reading of his evidence given before coroner.-Kelley v. State,

W. 513.

(G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators and Codefendants.

423(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statements of another prior to commission of offense are admissible, where made under circumstances tending to show he and defendant were coconspirators.Cannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83.

424(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Declarations of coconspirator, in defendant's absence after completion of crime, are inadmissible, unless they are res gestæ, or made while declarant was in possession of the fruits of the crime.-Cannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83.

(I) Opinion Evidence.

448(3) (Ark.) Testimony by one, who went on scene of murder after crime, that one bullet went wild, was not incompetent being merely a description of the situation and not attempt to prove intent of accused.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

448(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) There being evidence that accused was suddenly attacked by deceased and companions at night, accused could testify that he did not intend to kill, but only used his knife as a means of defense and to free himself from attack.-Lozano v. State, 202 S. W. 510.

(J) Testimony of Accomplices and Codefendants.

511(1) (Ark.) Corroborating circumstances held sufficient, with accomplice's testimony to warrant conviction of arson.-Shaw v. State,

202 S. W. 704.

(K) Confessions.

519(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, testimony that defendant had told witness, a grand juryman, that he had sold beer to prosecuting witness, and that he would plead guilty if witness would aid him in getting suspended sentence, held not inadmissible as involuntary confession.-Goss v. State, 202 S. W. 956.

536 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused in at tempting to avoid arrest for burglary shot the deputy sheriff, his confession to the burglary after arrest on both charges was admissible in the prosecution for murder, if material. Burkhardt v. State, 202 S. W. 513.

202 S. W. 49.

547 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for murder of a daughter, refusal to admit in evidence transcribed stenographer's notes taken sel at the examining trial showing that a witby a private stenographer of defendant's counness' statement as to what accused said with the same as testimony at trial, held not error. reference to killing whole family was not just -Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.

547(4) (Ark.) Evidence taken on hearing before coroner and taken down in shorthand and transcribed need not be identified by stenographer, but may be identified by some one who was present and can recall substance of evidence.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

(M) Weight and Sufficiency.

564(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence held sufficient to show venue of a burglary with intent to commit theft.—Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93.

XI. TIME OF TRIAL AND CONTIN-
UANCE.

594(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for slander by imputing want of chastity, defendant held entitled to continuance for unavoidable absence of witness under subpoena, injured in automobile accident while on his way to attend trial.-Lemcke v. State, 202 S. W. 744.

597(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where evidence was that defendant assisted in a burglary by hauling off and concealing the goods, there was no error in refusing a continuance on the ground that the other, if present, would testify that he committed the burglary.-Coprew v. State, 202 S. W. 81.

598 (2) (Ark.) To entitle defendant in criminal case to a continuance on account of absence of witnesses, he must show proper diligence to secure their attendance.-Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.

598(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where an indictment was returned in September and process was not asked for a known witness until six days before the trial in November, there was not sufficient diligence to entitle defendant to a continuance.-Coprew v. State, 202 S. W. 81.

In prosecution for murder of deputy sheriff who attempted to prevent escape of accused after arrest for burglary, accused's subsequent 600(1) (Ky.) Where accused was permitted confession to the crime of burglary was admissible on the question of motive.-Id.

(L) Evidence at Preliminary Examination or at Former Trial.

539(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In view of Code Cr. Proc. art. 790, providing defendant may testify, but failure shall not be held against him, defendant's silence on first trial when witness

to read to the jury his statement of what absent. witnesses would testify to, it was not error to refuse a continuance on the ground of absence of such witnesses.-Davis v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 633.

608 (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to establish necessary diligence to entitle accused to continuance on the ground of absence of witnesses.-Davis v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W.

XII. TRIAL.

(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General.

633(1) (Ky.) Prosecutrix may have with her in court a child born as a result of an alleged seduction.-Jordan v. Commonwealth, 202

S. W. 896.

(F) Province of Court and Jury in General.

737(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) If there is issue as to whether defendants acted together as principals, court should submit question to jury for their decision under appropriate instructions.Bennett v. State, 202 S. W. 730.

656(9) (Tex.Cr.App.) The court's conduct, 741(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. made, tending to lead jury to think court con-761(6) sidered defendant guilty, was improper under the statute.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 944.

(C) Reception of Evidence. 662(8) (Ky.) Request by one accused of murder to be tried before the same jury and on the same facts as his codefendant, who had previously been tried, held a waiver of defendant's right to confront the state's witness.Bonar v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 676.

665(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where murder trial was attended by great crowd, so that assistance of sheriff in keeping order was necessary, trial court properly exercised discretion in refusing to have sheriff placed under rule with other witnesses.-Vestal v. State, 202 S. W. 94. 675 (Ark.) There was no error in homicide case in not allowing witness to testify as to point on which she had already fully corroborated defendant.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

683(1) (Tenn.) One accused of crime, having testified in his own behalf and left the stand, may again testify in rebuttal concerning matters brought out by testimony of the state. -Arnold v. State, 202 S. W. 935.

(D) Objections to Evidence, Motions to Strike Out, and Exceptions.

(Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for incest, charge that if jury believed that parties were uncle and niece they would be within statute was not erroneous as assuming facts.Griffin v. State, 202 S. W. 87.

for

762(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution abortion, trial court violated statute in expressing before jury opinion with reference to testimony of victim as to why she had procured certain money.—Earnest v. State, 202 S. W. 739.

763, 764(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for hog theft, it was proper to refuse, as a comment on the weight of the evidence, an instruction that if defendant turned some hogs loose near L.'s house, and L., under the belief that hogs of the complaining witness were such hogs, fed them, these facts are insufficient to convict; the theory of the state being that defendant had taken the hogs, re-marked them, and turned them loose on the range near L.'s house.Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.

763, 764 (17) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge as to testimony by defense witness that evidence of his previous indictment, trial, and acquittal for the same killing "was admitted for the sole purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness, * * and you shall consider it for no other purpose,' was erroneous, as a charge upon weight of evidence.-Lozano v. State, 202 S. W. 510.

*

[ocr errors]

(G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency

of Instructions.

695(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In bill reciting that testimony of a prior shooting was objected to upon ground that it occurred four or five years prior to shooting in instant case, ground of objection was not a statement of fact, but a reason for objection.-Anderson v. State, 202779 (Tex.Cr.App.) If conspiracy is shown or defendants acted together, court is authorized to charge on that phase of law, though charge would be erroneous if such evidence was not in case.-Bennett v. State, 202 S. W. 730.

S. W. 953.

695(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Objections on criminal trial to evidence as "incompetent and prejudicial" or "immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent" are too general for consideration if the evidence could have been admissible for any purpose. Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93.

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel.

719(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution of former train porter for burglary, argument that the oldest train porter on a certain railroad had been sent to the penitentiary was improper. Ditto v. State, 202 S. W. 735.

720(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the evidence fully justified reference to accused's acts in throwing rocks at deceased just before the murder, that the county attorney imputed such testimony to the wrong witness was not error. -Redick v. State, 202 S. W. 743.

789(2) (Ark.) Instruction, "By reasonable doubt is meant that evidence of defendant's guilt must be clear and convincing and fully satisfy your minds and consciences, but it does not mean a mere imaginary, possible, or captious doubt," is sufficiently affirmative.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

804(8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Statute is mandatory that charges given in criminal cases be certified. -Payne v. State, 202 S. W. 958.

811(6) (Mo.App.) Giving of cautionary instruction on testimony of defendant in criminal case is reversible error.-State v. Clark, 202 S. W. 259.

814(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Charge submitting case should conform to indictment, charging, as authorized by Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 456, intent to kill "some person to the grand jury unknown," and should not authorize conviction on intent to kill "any" person.Cannon v. State, 202 S. W. 83.

723(1) (Ky.) Exhibition of a child born to prosecutrix being incompetent under Ky. St. § 1214, it was reversible error to allow the commonwealth's attorney to take it and, holding it in his arms, comment on the wrong done to it by its father denying a promise to marry.-823(4) (Ark.) Instruction defining larceny Jordan v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 896.

730(13) (Ark.) In prosecution for hog theft, statement in good faith by prosecuting attorney in opening that defendant had also changed marks on other hogs, which were missing, was not prejudicial where the jury was admonished. -Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.

as the felonious stealing, taking, "or" carrying away personal property, held not misleading, in view of another instruction given.-Banks v. State, 202 S. W. 43.

823(6) (Ark.) Instruction as to self-defense, which did not refer to reasonable doubt or less offenses than murder, should be considered in

For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER

connection with other instructions.-Kelley v.1 State, 202 S. W. 49.

(H) Requests for Instructions. 829(1) (Ark.) Court need not give requested instructions in homicide case that are fully covered by other instructions.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

(I) Objections to Instructions or Refusal Thereof, and Exceptions. 844(1) (Ark.) Erroneous definition of larceny, if error, held not amenable to general objection.-Banks v. State, 202 S. W. 43.

(J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations of Jury.

854(9) (Ky.) There was no separation of jury, requiring reversal, where during temporary lull in murder trial juror left his seat and approached a person to ask him to look after juror's horse, and, sheriff interrupting, the juror returned to his seat.-Thomas v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 498.

(K) Verdict.

878(2) (Mo.App.) Where both counts of an information or indictment relate to the same transaction, a general verdict is sufficient.State v. Evertz, 202 S. W. 614.

In a prosecution for treating a sick person without a license, held, that both counts of the information obviously related to one and the same transaction, and that a general verdict

was sufficient.-Id.

884 (Mo.App.) Where but one offense is charged in two separate counts in an information under a statute imposing a minimum fine for each offense, the jury is authorized to assess but one penalty.-State v. Evertz, 202 S. W. 614.

889 (Tex.Cr.App.) Verdict finding defendant guilty on first count of indictment, where such count had not been submitted, held properly sent back for correction under Code Cr. Proc. 1911, arts. 773, 774, as informal verdict, by substitution of the word "second" for "first."-Barnes v. State, 202 S. W. 949.

XIII. MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST.

[blocks in formation]

1024 (9) (Ky.) In case of a misdemeanor punishable by fine only, the commonwealth may appeal from an acquittal, and on a reversal have a new trial.-Commonwealth v. Gritten, 202 S. W. 884.

(B) Presentation and Reservation in Low.

er Court of Grounds of Review.

1039 (Ark.) Where evidence of state's witness is read to jury after submission of case at request of jury, defendant cannot complain that evidence of his witnesses on same point was not read, where it was not requested.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

1054(1) (Ark.) In a prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, error in compelling defendant to answer questions concerning a plea of guilty in a federal court will not be reviewed, in the absence of exceptions.— Cunningham v. State, 202 S. W. 27.

1059 (2) (Tenn.) Where exception below challenged entire dying declaration, most of which was competent, assignment of error as to part of declaration will be overruled on appeal. -Dickason v. State, 202 S. W. 922.

1066 (Tex.Cr.App.) Although an order was entered authorizing the filing of statement of facts and bill of exceptions after court had adjourned, this would not apply to evidence taken on motion for new trial, exceptions to which must be filed during term time.-Thompson v. State, 202 S. W. 91.

(C) Proceedings for Transfer and Effect Thereof.

of Cause,

1083 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused on conviction gave notice of appeal and recognizance before he was sentenced, the court nevertheless had jurisdiction to set aside the recognizance and sentence accused and to require a new recognizance.-Ingram v. State, 202 S. W. 741.

915 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Bill of Rights, § 10, in view of section 29, an indictment, leaving out the words "by the" in the formal clause "by the authority of the state," held fatally de- (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Recfective, so that court erred in not allowing amended, motion for new trial for alleged discovery that indictment had been amended by inserting such omitted words.-Alvarado State, 202 S. W. 322.

V.

938(1) (Ark.) Newly discovered evidence in prosecution for grand larceny held not to require new trial.-Banks v. State, 202 S. W. 43.

945(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where conviction of burglary rested largely on finding tracks similar to those of accused at the scene of the burglary, and after conviction, a third person made affidavit that his house had been burglarized and a similar track found while accused was in jail, such testimony warranted new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.-Ditto v. State, 202 S. W. 735.

949(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) The filing of an amended motion for new trial is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court. -Alvarado v. State, 202 S. W. 322.

970(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Failure of indictment under Penal Code 1911, arts. 1421, 1422, for swindling, to state the name of the particular person to whom the false representation was made, cannot be questioned after verdict, under Vernon's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 849, as to motions in arrest of judgment.-Pruitt v.

ord.

the 1087(1) (Tex. Cr.App.) Where record shows no notice of appeal, the appeal will be dismissed.-Thompson v. State, 202 S. W. 91. it appears 1087(2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where from the record on appeal that statement of facts and bill of exceptions were filed beyond term time, an order of court for such filing should be shown.-Thompson v. State, 202 S. W. 91.

1087 (2) (Tex. Cr.App.) Bills of exceptions and statement of facts in misdemeanor case in county court having no official stenographer must be filed in term time or within 20 days thereafter, and, if filed after adjournment, record must show order duly entered extending time within which filing might be made.-Lee v. State, 202 S. W. 732.

1090 (1) (Tex.Cr.App.) In the absence of bill of exception and statement of facts, the only question raised is the sufficiency of the indictment.-Price v. State, 202 S. W. 948.

for

1090 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution murder, refusal of continuance will not be reviewed in absence of bill of exceptions.-Lewis v. State, 202 S. W. 86.

appli

1090 (7) (Tex.Cr.App.) Overruling

where bill of exceptions was not reserved to ruling. Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.

1090 (11) (Mo.App.) In a prosecution for violation of Rev. St. 1909, § 8315, prohibiting the practice of medicine without a license, an attack on the constitutionality of the statute raised by motion will not be reviewed on appeal, where no bill of exceptions incorporating such motion has been signed by the court. State v. Sollars, 202 S. W. 623.

Rev. St. 1909, § 5313, on the mere ground of inadvertence of appellant's attorneys.-Id.

1109 (2) (Mo.App.) Where a bill of exceptions was not signed by judge, appellant cannot suggest diminution of record before Court of Appeals, where his attention was called to the fact that it was not signed while case was before Supreme Court, to which it had first been appealed, and he made no effort before either court to prove bill was in fact signed.-State 1090(13) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for V. Sollars, 202 S. W. 623. murder, statement by assistant prosecuting at-1120(7) (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions torney commenting on failure of defendant to not stating object and purpose of testimony deny that he signed confession will not be re- sought to be introduced is not entitled to conviewed in absence of bill of exceptions.-Lewis sideration.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953. v. State, 202 S. W. 86.

1090 (14) (Tex.Cr.App.) In the absence of bill of exceptions and statement of facts, alleged errors in refusing instructions cannot be determined. Spohn v. State, 202 S. W. 732.

1090 (16) (Tex.Cr.App.) Questions raised in motion for new trial are not reviewable, where they are not verified by bills of excep; tions and no statement of facts is contained in record.-Young v. State, 202 S. W. 509.

1090 (16) (Tex.Cr.App.) In absence of bill of exceptions, grounds of motion for new trial cannot be considered.-Spohn v. State, 202 S. W. 732.

1091 (8) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions as to counsel's remarks with reference to accused's failure to place witnesses on stand to prove good reputation was too indefinite; it not stating facts, or whether reputation was an issue.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.

1092(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where bills of exception are not filed within the time allowed, and no additional time is granted, a motion to strike must be granted.-Harris v. State, 202 S. W. 958.

1092 (11) (Tex.Cr.App.) Bill of exceptions not approved by trial judge cannot be considered.-Anderson v. State, 202 S. W. 953.

1124 (1) (Ky.) On appeal from a conviction of murder, refusal to grant new trial for implied bias of a juror because of relationship to deceased will not be considered where appellant made no affidavit concerning such relationship, but presented the ground only by affidavits filed by his codefendant on a simistatement in his motion, referring therein to lar motion, and such affidavits were not made a part of the record.-Bonar v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 676.

1124 (4) (Tex.Cr.App.) For review, as to motion for new trial, the facts stated as grounds in the motion must be prepared and sent with the record.-Williams v. State, 202 S. W. 958.

[blocks in formation]

1134 (5) (Ky.) Error of trial court in summoning panel from county not "adjoining" county in which defendant was tried contrary to Cr. Code Prac. § 194, is not reviewable in view of section 281.-Frasure 7. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 653. al-1144(6) (Tex.Cr.App.) It will be presumed that venue was proved unless it was a question of serious import upon the trial or unless contested or verified in a bill of exceptions.-Sherman v. State, 202 S. W. 93.

1093 (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for incest, bill of exceptions reciting that court permitted witness to testify that defendant had ways been called a certain person's son was insufficient, as too indefinite.-Griffin v. State, 202 S. W. 87.

In prosecution for incest, bill of exception reciting that witness was asked if it was not practice for children to adopt name of their step-1144(10) (Mo.App.) In the absence of a father, and that he would have answered in bill of exceptions to show what witnesses were negative, was too indefinite for consideration. used by the state, it cannot be assumed on ap-Id. peal that certain witnesses whose names were indorsed on the information were not used in making a case against defendant.-State v. Sollars, 202 S. W. 623.

In prosecution for incest, bill of exception that witness had testified that her daughter disappeared in certain county and could not be found was insufficient as being too indefinite. -Id.

1099(5) (Tex. Cr.App.) To be considered by Court of Criminal Appeals, statement of evidence heard on motion for new trial must be filed during term at which trial occurred. Vestal v. State, 202 S. W. 94.

1102 (Tex.Cr.App.) On criminal appeal, statement of facts made up of questions and answers cannot be considered, and Attorney General's motion to eliminate it will be sustained.-Ferguson v. State, 202 S. W. 733.

1153(5) (Ark.) In prosecution for hog theft, it was discretionary to allow complaining witness to remain in the courtroom, and a conviction will not be reversed unless prejudice is shown.-Sheptine v. State, 202 S. W. 225.

1158(4) (Tenn.) Where fact of declarant's condition depends on credibility of witnesses. great weight is to be attached to conclusions of trial judge in holding a dying declaration admissible, and court on appeal will not reverse, unless there is manifest error.-Dickason v. State, 202 S. W. 922.

1159(1) (Mo.App.) Conviction will not be reversed as against evidence, except for total absence of evidence, or such complete failure thereof as to create inference of prejudice or partiality.-State v. Spencer, 202 S. W. 612.

106 (3) (Mo.) Where, in a felony case not capital, the complete transcript was not filed, and the docket fee not paid, for more than 12 months after the appeal was allowed as the statutes and court rules required, and good cause for the delay as provided in Rev. St. 1159(2) (Ky.) Court of Appeals is not au1909, § 5313, was not shown, the appeal will thorized to review conviction on ground verdict be dismissed.-State v. Nelon, 202 S. W. 536. is against evidence unless it is flagrantly so.Failure to file full transcript and pay docket Board of Council of City of Danville v. Comfees within 12 months from the day of grant-monwealth, 202 S. W. 858. ing an appeal in a felony case not capital can- 1159(3) (Tex.Cr.App.) In prosecution for not be excused for good cause shown under selling intoxicating liquor in violation of law,

finding based on conflicting testimony will not be reviewed.-Goss v. State, 202 S. W. 956.

166(11) (Mo.App.) That the prosecuting attorney, during the trial indorsed the name of a witness on the information to correct an

1171(1) (Ark.) In prosecution for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, statement by the prosecuting attorney that the reason why defendant sold the whisky openly in the presence of a police officer was that the law was error in the spelling of his name as originally being openly violated. Held, not prejudicial indorsed was not ground for reversal, where error.-Cunningham v. State, 202 S. W. 27. the trial court found that prosecutor's error 1173(2) (Ky.) Since the minimum punishwas unintentional, and that defendant was not misled thereby.-State v. Sollars, 202 S. W. 623.

ment for attempted rape is less than that fixed for carnally knowing a female under 16 years of age, failure to give an instruction on attempted rape is prejudicial.-Smith v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 309.

11662(1) (Ark.) In a case wherein the court fined an attorney for contempt, held, that there was no error to the prejudice of defend-1178 (Ky.) Complaint that indictment for ant in the proceedings.-Wright v. State, 202 murder is insufficient, raised for first time on S. W. 236. defendant's third appeal, need not be considered; no objection to indictment being presented by brief.-Frasure v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 653.

11662(12) (Ark.) Where it was undisputed on trial of homicide case that knife shown in evidence was same knife that was shown at coroner's inquest, no prejudice resulted from remark of court that it had been identified by

one of defendant's witnesses.-Kelley v. State,

202 S. W. 49.

1168(2) (Tenn.) Where accused had testified in his own behalf, and another witness tes tified he had offered to pay $500 if the prose cution were dismissed. error in refusing to allow accused to contradict such testimony in rebuttal was prejudicial.-Arnold v. State, 202 S. W. 935.

1169(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the record plainly showed that deceased was interested in, and lived at, a house of ill fame, it was not prejudicial to refuse evidence that he received part of the money earned by the women of the house.-Houston v. State, 202 S. W. 84.

1169(2) (Ark.) Where it was undisputed on trial of homicide case that knife shown in evidence was same knife that was shown at coroner's inquest, no prejudice resulted from additional evidence of fact.-Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

(H) Determination and Disposition of Cause.

1186(4) (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for that conviction could be had upon proving sale selling liquors in dry territory. an instruction though error, was to any one of the four named in the indictment, where the evidence clearly proved sale to all not ground for reversal, Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 743.-Price v. State, 202 four; such error being harmless under Code S. W. 948.

1190 (Ark.) Where court suspended defendants from offices of constable and deputy constable when indictment charging violation of liquor laws was returned against them, and removed them from office as part of final judgment of guilty, reversal on appeal disposes of order of removal, but order of suspension, if valid, remains in force.-Winfrey v. State, 202 S. W. 23.

CROPS.

See Landlord and Tenant, 332.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

1169(6) (Tex. Cr.App.) In prosecution for assault to murder, improper admission of former testimony of absent witness and improper See Witnesses, 268, 280, 330, 350. admission of bloody coat of assaulted person's brother, in connection with record ard verdict were error requiring reversal.-White v. State, 202 S. W. 737.

1169 (9) (Ky.) Statement of witness that gunshot wound in deceased's back caused his death, if incompetent, because expert evidence for which he did not qualify, was not prejudicial; it being immaterial which shot caused the death.-Thomas v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 498.

1170(1) (Ark.) Where defendant in homicide case testified that he knew and did not object to men sleeping with certain girl, it was not prejudicial to refuse to permit him to testify in rebuttal that he did not know or care whether the girl had deceased as her man.Kelley v. State, 202 S. W. 49.

1170(1) (Tex.Cr.App.) Where it was undisputed that deceased was a quarrelsome and dangerous man, defendant was not harmed by exclusion of more evidence on such matter.Houston v. State, 202 S. W. 84.

11702 (1) (Ky.) Leading questions asked to refresh recollection of witnesses after testimony in answer to questions not leading, which resulted in no prejudice, were not reversible error.-Davis v. Commonwealth, 202 S. W. 633.

11702 (2) (Tex.Cr.App.) Error of prosecuting attorney in asking defendant if he did not know that he was lying was harmless, where defendant replied that he did not.-Redict v. State, 202 S. W. 743.

11702 (6) (Tex.Cr.App.) Erroneous crossexamination of accused's wife was harmless, where the judge, on his own motion, stopped the county attorney and did not permit the questions to be answered.-Ingram v. State,

See Divorce,

CRUELTY.

130.

CURTESY.

See Constitutional Law, 95.

2 (Tenn.) By Thomp. Shan. Code, §§ 4234, 4239, the husband's curtesy initiate is not entirely destroyed, but merely reduced from a vested estate to a contingent right.-Day v. Burgess, 202 S. W. 911.

Though child was born alive before change in character of curtesy initiate, a statute materially changing such estate applies to all property acquired by the wife subsequent to its enactment.-Id.

Where the husband at the effective date of the Married Woman's Emancipation Act had only an estate by the curtesy initiate, which was not a vested right, since his wife was then living, the Legislature could pass such act which prevented the accrual of the curtesy consummate on the wife's death.-Id.

2 (Tenn.) The Married Woman's Emancipation Act (Thomp. Shan. Code, § 4249a) did not of itself abolish the estate of tenancy by the curtesy consummate.-Hull v. Hull, 202 S. W. 914.

7 (Tenn.) The requisites to a tenancy by the curtesy are marriage, seisin of the wife, birth of a living child capable of inheriting, though it may afterwards die, and death of the wife in the lifetime of the husband.-Day v. Burgess, 202 S. W. 911.

9(1) (Tenn.) Where husband pays for lands, directing grantor to convey them to the wife, he acquires an estate by the curtesy con

« ПретходнаНастави »