Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Under Rev. St. 1895, arts. 749, 5243, as Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 797,
amended by Laws 1897, p. 168, c. 120, certifi- held that the authority of an agent for a county
cate of Secretary of State that foreign cor- for the erection of a county building, etc., may
poratiou has forfeited its permit for nonpay- be shown by parol. Jackson-Foxworth Lum-
ment of taxes held not evidence of such for- ber Co. v. Hutchinson County (Tex. Civ. App.)
feiture.-St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproof: 412.
ing Co. v. Beilharz (Tex. Civ. App.) 512.

§ 2. Property, contracts, and liabilities.

A contract, made by the county court, pro-
CORRECTION.

viding for payment of fees to an attorney "in

consideration of services rendered and to be
Of record on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- rendered,” is totally void both as to the coun-
peal and Error," 10.

ty and the attorney, under Rev. St. 1899, $

6759.-Morrow v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.
CORROBORATION.

A contract made by the county court for the

employment of an attorney not evidenced by
In action for rape, see "Rape," $ 3.

any record entry is void.-Morrow v. Pike
Or wife in suit for divorce, see “Divorce," $ 2 County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

Record entry of contract between county
COSTS.

court and an attorney for the employment of

the latter in a certain case held sufficient to
In action by or against trustee in bankruptcy, satisfy Rev. St. 1899, 88 6759, 6760.—Morrow
see "Bankruptcy," 8 2.

v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.
In action for partition, see "Partition," $ 1. As the commissioners' court of a county has
1 1. Nature, grounds, and extent of no power to contract to pay the cost of publica-

tion of a notice to nonresident taxpayers, it
right in general.
Plaintiff held not entitled to object for the cannot ratify such a contract when made by
first time on motion to retax costs to a tender the county attorney. -Baldwin v. Travis Coun.
made by defendant.---Thompson V.

ty (Tex. Civ. App.) 480.

Baxter
(Ark.) 985.

In an action against a county on a contract
§ 2. On appeal or error, and on new

alleged to have been made with the county
trial or motion therefor.

attorney, and ratified by the commissioners'
Where the motion for new trial assigned as

court, but which was such that the commis-
ground that the damages were excessive, and sioners' court had no power to make it, the
the instruction was to find a specitied sum,' with coauty could not be estopped from setting up
interest from certain dates, the plaintiff can-

this defense.-Baldwin v. Travis County (Tex.
not avoid the costs of the appeal because spe

Civ. App.) 480.
cific objection was not made in the trial court. Gen. Laws 25th Leg. p. 138, c. 103 (Delin-
-Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas City & I. quent Tax Act) 8 15, held to give counties no
Air Line Co. (Mo. Sup.) 3.

power to contract to pay the expense of pub-
A party appealing from a judgment errone-

lication of notice to nonresident delinquent tax.
quis on accouut of a miscalculation held not en-

payers.- Baldwin v. Travis County (Tex. Civ.
titled to costs.--Sweet v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.)

App.) 480.
384.

8 3. Fiscal management, pablio debt,

securities, and taxation.
CO-TENANCY.

Attorney, employed to protect county school

fund provided for by Rev. St. 1899, 9824,
See "Tenancy in Common."

should be paid out of the fund and not from the

general county revenue.—Morrow V. Pike
COUNCIL.

County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

In an action on
See “Municipal Corporations," $ 4.

a county warrant by the
assignee thereof, in order to entitle him to re-

cover interest from the time of presentment of
COUNTERCLAIM.

the warrant and refusal of payment, the bur-
den was on plaintiff to show that he had com-

plied with all the requirements of law.-Isen-
See “Set-Off and Counterclaim."

hour v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 759; Fink

v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 765.
COUNTERFEITING.

Under Rev. St. 1899, $$ 3705, 6771, 6798.

6799, 6808, held, that interest did not run on
See "Forgery."

an assigned county warrant from time of its
presentment and rejection for lack of funds

Ísenhour v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 759;
COUNTERMAND,

Fink v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 765.
or order of goods bought, see “Sales," $ 3.

Under Rev. St. 1899, 8 3705, interest at 6
per cent. held to run on a county warrant

which calls for no rate of interest, after pres-
COUNTIES.

entation and failure to pay for lack of money

in the treasury -Isenhour v. Barton County
Proof of

agency for, “Principal and (Mo. Sup.) 759; Fink v. Barton County (Mo.
Agent," $ 2.

Sup.) 765.
§ 1. Government and officers.

§ 4. Actions.
Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 797, Where a contract for the employment of an
held that an agent of a county for the erection attorney provides for the payment of the at-
of a county building, etc., must have been torney out of a certain fund, a judgment in the
authorized by the county commissioners acting attorney's favor on the contract should provide
as a body.-Jackson-Foxworth Lumber Co. v. for its satisfaction out of that fund.-Morrow
Hutchinsou County (Tex. Civ. App.) 412. v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

COUNTY COURTS.

$ 4. Courts of appellate jurisdiction.

Under Const. art. 7, 88 14, 4, and the provi-
Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do-sion requiring appeals from the probate court
main," 8 2.

to be taken to the circuit court and from thence

to the Supreme Court, the latter court held to
COURTS.

have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of manda-

mus directing a probate court to enter a nunc
Attendance on, by nonresident, exemption from pro tunc order granting an appeal to the cir-
service of process, see “Process," § 2.

cuit court.-Featherstone v. Folbre (Ark.) 554,
Clerks, see "Clerks of Courts."

The office of school director is an office with-
Contempt of court, see "Contempt."

in Const. art. 6, § 12, conferring exclusive ap-
Indian courts, see "Indians.”

pellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in
Judges, see "Judges."

cases involving the title to an office under this
Judicial power, see "Constitutional Law," 8 1.

state. - State ex inf. Sutton V. Fasse (Mo.
Justices courts, see "Justices of the Peace.” Sup.) 1.
Mandamus to inferior courts, see "Manda-
mus," $ 1.

An appeal raising a constitutional question
Province of court and jury, see "Trial," $ 5. not decided when appeal was taken held to be
Removal of action from state court to United retained by the Supreme Court.-Boling v. St.

States court, see "Removal of Causes." Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 35.
Review of decisions, see “Appeal and Error." Under Const. art. 5, § 6, and Sayles' Ann.
Right to trial by jury, see "Jury," $ 1.

Civ. St. 1897, art. 997, courts of civil .appeals
Special or local laws, see “Statutes," $ 2.

held to have no power to issue writ of prohibi-

tion when not sought in aid of appellate juris-
Jurisdiction of particular actions, proceedings, diction.—Dunn v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
or subjects.

Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 532.
See “Criminal Law," $_3; “Divorce," $ 2; 8 5. Concurrent and conflicting juris-
"Partition," $ 1; "Quo Warranto," g'1.

diction, and comity.
Action against carrier, see "Carriers," $ 1.

Consideration of a petition for the appoint-
Condemnation proceedings, see “Eminent Do- ment of a receiver for a corporation by judge
main," $ 2.

held an assumption of jurisdiction over the cor-
Sale of school lands, see "Public Lands," 8 2 poration's property, precluding a subsequent at-
To compel excise commissioner to make and tachment from operating as a lien thereon.-
certify record, see “Certiorari," 8 2.

Worden v. Pruter (Tex. Civ. App.) 434.
§ 1. Establishment, organization, and
procedure in general.

COVENANTS.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, construing a state statute as in : 1: Construction and operation.
conflict with the interstate commerce act, is

*Covenantee in covenant against incumbran-
conclusive.-Spratlin v. St. Louis Southwestern

ces held entitled to sue for a breach, although
Ry. Co. (Ark.) 836.

he had knowledge of such breach.-Brown v.

Taylor (Tenn.) 933.
An act creating a criminal court for a county
is not void, because it imposes special duties : 2. Actions for breach.
on the sheriff and clerk of the court and in- *Covenantee in broken covenant against in-
cidental expenses of the county.-State v. Etch- cumbrances held not entitled to recover as dam-
man (Mo. Sup.) 643.

ages certain counsel fees.-Brown V. Taylor

(Tenn.) 933.
Ruling of Supreme Court that a certain con-
tract is not in violation of the anti-trust act of breach of covenant against incumbrances de-

Recovery of certain special damages for
1903 (Laws 1903, p. 119, c. 94) held conclusive nied.-Brown v. Taylor (Tenn.) 933.
that the contract is not in violation of the act
of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 246, c. 146).-Ft. Worth * Measure of covenantee's damages for breach
& D. C. Ry. Co. v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 370. of covenant against incumbrances stated. -

Brown v. Taylor (Tenn.) 933.
$ 2. Courts of general original jurisdio-

Vendee held entitled to recover from the veu-
tion.

dor the value of the land to which title failed,
A petition held not to show à cause of ac- and costs of suit.-McBride v. Burns (Tex. Civ.
tion within jurisdiction of the district court.-

App.) 394.
Moore y. Snell (Tex. Civ. App.) 270.
A deduction by the purchaser of cattle of $100

COVERTURE.
from the price for injuries in transit, with in-
terest, held the measure of the seller's damages, See "Husband and Wife,"
and that the suit was therefore not within the
jurisdiction of the county court.-Atchison, T.

CREDIBILITY.
& S. F. Ry. Co. y. Waddell Bros. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 390.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," $ 3.
§ 3. Courts of limited or inferior juris-
diction.

CREDITORS.
In a suit by a carrier to enforce the lien
given by Rev. St, 1895, arts. 327, 328, 330, the See “Assignments for Benefit of Creditors”;
value of the property on which the lien is
claimed, and not the amount of the freight

"Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances.”
charges, determines the jurisdiction of the trial Remedies, against surety, see “Principal and
court.—Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Rucker (Tes. Subrogation to rights of creditor, see “Subro-
Civ. App.) 815.

gation."
Where petition by carrier seeks the recovery
of property on which freight charges are due,

CREDITORS' SUIT.
the value of the property determines the juris-
diction of the court.-Texas & N. 0. R. Čo. v. Remedies in cases of assignments, see “As-
Rucker (Tex, Civ. App.) 815.

signments for Benefit of Creditors," $ 1.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

Remedies in cases of fraudulent conveyances, defendant consented to such suspension, but
see "Fraudulent Corrveyances," $ 2.

his consent would be presumed.-Burnett v.

State (Ark.) 956.
CRIMINAL LAW.

The court has no judicial knowledge as to

when local option laws are put into operation.-
Bail, see “Bail," $ 1.

Craddick v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 347.
Competency of jurors, see "Jury," $ 3.

In a prosecution for theft from the person,
Competency of witnesses, see "Witnesses," certain evidence held properly excluded.--Nelson
$ 1.

v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 807.
Conviction of offense included in that charged,

see "Indictment and Information," $ 4. 8 7. Facts in issue and relevant to
Credibility, impeachment, contradiction and

issues, and res gestæ.
corroboration of witnesses, see “Witnesses,"

*In a criminal prosecution. evidence that on
$ 3.

the day before the trial defendant had assaulted
Indictment, information, or complaint, one of the witnesses for the prosecution held
“Indictment and Information."

admissible.—Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.
Leading questions, see "Witnesses," § 2.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence that
Requisites and validity in general of work- immediately after the shooting the wife of de-
house law, see "Statutes," 8 1.

ceased asked defendant why he shot deceased,
Statute authorizing commutation of sentence and that defendant replied: "Don't come down

as invasion of pardoning power, see “Con- here with your gun. I have got as much lead
stitutional Law," § 1.

as anybody"-was admissible.-Long v. State
Summoning and attendance of jurors, see (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

"Jury," $ 2.
Termination of prosecution, see "Malicious

In a prosecution for murder, refusal to per-
Prosecution," $ 2.

mit accused to state the circumstances of his

surrender held proper.-Upton v. State (Tes.
Particular off enses.

Cr. App.) 212.
See “Arson”; “Assault and Battery;) ... 2; fuse to permit accused to show what his child

In a prosecution for murder held error to re-
"Breach of the Peace”; “Burglary”; “Con: stated to his wife in delivering a note from de-
tempt"; "False Pretenses''; **Forgery: ceased.–Upton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 212.
"Homicide”; “Intoxicating Liquors," $ 4;
"Larceny”; “Lotteries,' $ 1; “Perjury''; On a trial for homicide held error to permit
"Rape";'“Rescue"; "Robbery"';' "Seduction,' the state to show that defendant, while in jail
$ 1.

awaiting trial, was studying law. Cole v. State
Against liquor laws, see “Intoxicating Liquors,” (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
$ 3.

In a prosecution for murder, a certain state-
· Violations of municipal ordinances, see “Mu- ment made by deceased held admissible as res
nicipal Corporations," $ 6.

gestæ.---Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.
$ 1. Capacity to commit and responsi- In a prosecution for theft from the person,
bility for crime.

certain evidence held admissible as res gestæ.-
*Voluntary drunkenness, though producing Nelson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 807.
temporary mental aberration, is no excuse for
crime.-Byrd v. State (Ark.) 974,

Other offenses, and character

of accused.
$ 2. Parties to offenses.

In a prosecution for larceny, evidence of sim-
A person held not an accomplice in an assault. ilar acts by defendant held admissible on ques-
--Mahaney v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.

tion of intention.-Johnson v. State (Ark.) 905.
§ 3. Jurisdiction.

*Where defendant, in a prosecution for
Where, in a prosecution before a justice of murder, does not place his general character
the peace, defendant is charged merely with for peace and quiet in issue, the state has no
the offense of carrying a pistol, the fact that right to attack his character in that respect.
he carried it at a public assembly did not alter

--Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
the nature of the charge so as to deprive the In homicide, testimony of a similar assault
justice of jurisdiction.-Trevinio v. State (Tex. made by defendants earlier in the evening on a
Cr. App.) 356.

person situated as deceased was held compe-
$ 4. Venue.

tent.--State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
Failure to comply with a rule of the circuit

$ 9.
court relative to change of venue in criminal

Admissions, declarations, and

hearsay.
case held not sufficient reason for refusing a

A defendant, on trial for murder, who did
change of venue.--Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.

not object to the state's questions assuming
*In a criminal case, the action of the court that he killed decedent, held deemed not to
in overruling a motion for change of venue held have denied the killing.–Casieel v. State (Ark.)
not arbitrary.-Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009. 1004,

On an application for a change of venue for *In a prosecution for murder, a statement
prejudice of the inhabitants, witnesses held made by a witness to defendant, to which
properly permitted to withdraw their affidavits. the latter made no answer, was not admis.
-Williams v. United States (Ind. T.) 334. sible.—Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
8 5. Former jeopardy.

On a trial for homicide, evidence that de
Suspension of prosecution for seduction on cedent's wife had stated that decedent bad
marriage of female by accused, and subsequent threatened to kill defendant was hearsay.-
trial after desertion of female by accused, held Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
not to put accused twice in jeopardy of his On a trial of defendant for the murder of his
liberty.--Burnett v. State (Ark.) 956.

father-in-law, evidence of what the wife stated
§ 6. Evidence Judicial notice, pre defendant had told her during a quarrel held

sumptions, and burden of proof. inadmissible.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
State held not bound to show in rebuttal of

311.
plea of former jeopardy, based on account of In a prosecution for violation of the local op-
suspension of prosecution for seduction, that I tion law, certain testimony held hearsay and

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

$ 8.

[ocr errors]

inadmissible.-Craddick v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) / day after he was arrested on a bench warrant.
317.

-Baldridge v. Commonwealth (liy.) 1076.
In a prosecution for theft, testimony as to an The refusal to grant a continuance in a crim-
explanation made by defendant to deputy sher-inal case or to read the affidavit theretor as
iff held incompetent under the circumstances.-- the deposition of the absent witnesses held
Pool v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 350.

error.-Kehoe v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1107.
In a prosecution for horse theft, certain tes- The requisites of an application for a con-
timony held hearsay and prejudicial to defend-tinuance in a criminal case stated.-State v.
ant.-Pool v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 350.

Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
In a prosecution for aggravated assault, cer- In a criminal case, held, under the facts, not
tain evidence held inadmissible because of self- an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance.-
serving declaration.--Ellington v. State (Tex. State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
Cr. App.) 361.

The granting of a continuance rests largely
In a prosecution for swindling, by means of in the discretion of the trial court in a criminal
fraudulent sale of property, certain evidence as case.-State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
to title to the property held hearsay.-Brown v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 811.

8 15. Trial.

The inquiry on a trial under Cr. Code Prac.
$ 10.

Documentary evidence and ex- $ 156 on the issue of the savity of one indicted

clusion of paroi evidence thereby. | for crime, is whether he is sane enough to ap-
On a prosecution for murder, held proper to preciate his situation and rationally conduct his
admit in evidence a diagram of the room where case.-Commonwealth v. Woelfel (Ky.) 1061.
the killing occurred.-State v. Cummings (Mo.
Sup.) 706.

On a prosecution for the illegal sale of liquor,

evidence of two distinct offenses committed
811. Opinion evidence.

on the same day held admissible.-Kehoe v.
*In a prosecution for murder, witnesses who Commonwealth (Ky.) 1107.
hare detailed the acts of defendant may state
whether they considered him insane.--Byrd v.

Objections to testimony and exceptions to rul-
State (Ark.) 974.

ings must be made and saved, both in civil and

criminal cases, at the time the testimony is
On a trial, under Cr. Code Prac. $ 156, on the given.-State ý. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
issue of the sanity of one indicted for crime,
physicians held competent witnesses.-Common-

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2517, held not error
wealth v. Woelfel (Ky.) 1061.

to permit the state to examine certain witness-

es whose names were not indorsed on the in-
In a prosecution for horse theft, testimony formation.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.
'as to witness' opinion on the question of iden-
tity held incompetent.-Pool v. State (Tex. Cr. without being introduced as a witness, it was

Where defendant rested his case in chief
App.) 350.

proper for the court to confine testimony after-
$ 12. Confessions.

wards given by him to the rebuttal of rebuttal
A confession made by an accused while la testimony introduced by the state.-State v.
boring under the influence of threats which Forsha (Mo. Sup.) 746.
induced a prior confession to another person is

A conviction will not be reversed because the
inadmissible.- Johnson v. State (Tex. Čr. App.) verdict finds the accused guilty, and assesses
223.

his “punish” at confinement, etc.—Upton y.
8 13. Weight and sufficiency.

State (Tex. Cr. App.) 212.
A case held not one of circumstantial evi-

Hearing of testimony after the state's coun-
dence, in view of defendant's confession and the sel has finished his ening argument, and while
testimony of an accomplice. — McKinney v.

defendant's counsel is addressing the jury, held
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.

a matter within the discretion of the court, un-
$ 14. Time of trial and continnance.

der the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Kirby's Dig. $ 204, relative to the suspen-

- Trevinio v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 356.
sion of a prosecution for seduction on the A verdict stating that the jury assesses de-
marriage of defendant to the female seduced, fendant's punishment "to fine of $300” is not
and its renewal in case of subsequent aban- | vitiated by the use of the word "to" instead of
donment of such female, held not repugnant, “at a.”—Ellington v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
as against a defendant who does not demand | 361.
a trial notwithstanding the marriage, to the

In a criminal prosecution, proceeding with the
constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial. - trial, though the oficial stenographer was ab-
Burnett v. State (Ark.) 956.

sent, held not error.--- Nelson v. State Tex. Cr.
The overruling of a motion for a continuance App.) 807.
for absence of a witness in a criminal case
hold not an abuse of discretion.-Williams v. $ 16. Arguments and conduct of
United States (Ind. T.) 334.

counsel.

In prosecutions for unlawfully selling intoxi-
* Applications for continuance for absence of cating liquors, certain language used by prose,
witnesses held not to show sufficient diligence, cuting attorney in his closing arguments hold
within Cr. Code Prac. § 189, and Civ. Code not reversible error.-Reese v. State (Ark.) 841.
Prac. $ 315.- McQueen v. Commonwealth (Ky.)
1047.

*Under the statute, providing that the fail-

ure of defendant in a criminal prosecution
*The refusal to allow an affidavit to be read

to testify in his own behalf shall not be com-
as the testimony of an absent witness held not
error.-McQueen v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1047. right to refer to defendant's failure to testify

mented upon, the prosecuting attorney has no
*Where affidavit for a continuance was read as a witness upon an application for bail.

the deposition of absent witness, held Newman v. Co monwealth (Ky.) 1089.
error to permit the commonwealth to prove that
absent witness had been dead for a year.-Dar- inal case, in reference to testimony which was

Argument of counsel for the state in a crim-
rell v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1060.

not objected to and which was not made the
Where defendant forfeited his bail bond, subject of a motion to strike, was not error.-
it was error to force him to trial on the second | State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

as

Statement of district attorney in argument | In a prosecution for seduction, an instruc
relative to failure to put plaintiff's character in tion held on the weight of the testimony.-
issue held proper.-Moore v. State (Tex. Cr. Garlas v. State (Tex, Cr. App.) 345.
App.) 228.

Where one of defendant's witnesses testified
On a prosecution for burglary, permitting dis- on cross-examination that he had been indicted
trict attorney in arguing to jury to refer to for murder and tried for hog theft, it was not
exclusion of evidence of conspiracy to burglar- error to fail to limit the evidence by instruc-
ize held error.—Tally v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) tion.-Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.
339.

Where evidence is introduced to contradict
Argument of counsel in a criminal case should a witness, it is proper to instruct that it can
be kept strictly within the testimony adduced be considered only for that purpose. Franklin
upon the trial.-Pool v. State Tex. Cr App.) v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.
350.

A charge as to corroboration of accomplice
$ 17.
Instructions.

testimony, though not following White's Ann.
An instruction on a trial for homicide held Code. Cr. Proc. art. 781, held not erroneous.-
properly refused, because invading the province McKinney v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.
of the jury.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

A charge as to confession held in proper form,
On prosecution for homicide, objection to por- -McKinney v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.
tion of charge as to eyewitnesses held hyper-
critical.-State v. Heusack (Mo. Sup.) 21.

18. Custody, conduct, and delib-

erations of jury.
In homicide, instructions specially singling The refusal to set aside a conviction on the
out the testimony of certain person who ac- ground of separation of the jury held not error.
companied defendant on the occasion of the

-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.
killing held_properly refused.-State v. Bailey
(Mo. Sup.) 733.

The burden of proving that a juror, separating
In a prosecution for homicide, defendant held fluence, held not on the state.-Ince v. State

from the jury, was not exposed to improper in-
entitled to a charge that proof of his good char. (Ark.) 818.
acter should be considered in weighing his credi-
bility.-Phelan v. State (Tenn.) 1010.

The court held not to have abused its discre-
In a prosecution for homicide, refusal to counsel was arguing the questions of law to the

tion in sending the jury out while accused's
charge as to the weight to be given to evidence court.-Upton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 212.
of an undenied accusation of defendant by his
daughter immediately after the killing held An instruction held proper, under White's
prejudicial error.-Phelan v. State (Tenn.) 1040. Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 134, where the jury

In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction after retirement asked to have a witness' testi-
that, if defendant denied an accusation made by mony read to them (art. 735).—McKinney v.
his daughter immediately after the killing, sucả State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.
accusation could not be considered for any pur- $ 19. Motions for new trial and in are
pose, held properly refused.-Phelan v. State

rest.
(Tenn.) 1040.

An application for a new trial for newly dis-
In a prosecution for homicide, refusal of a covered evidence held properly devied.-Wil-
request submitting to the jury whether a denial liams v. United States (Ind. T.) 334.
of an accusation made by defendant's daughter
required held error.-Phelan

In a criminal case, the court held warranted
v. State

in refusing to consider affidavits for a new
(Tenn.) 1040.

trial.-State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
On prosecution for homicide, charge on self-
defense held erroneous under express, provi- newly discovered evidence of an impeaching

New trials are not ordinarily granted for
sions of statute prohibiting court from giving a character.—Hilscher v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
charge on the weight of testimony.-Craiger 227.
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
Where, in a criminal case, the court charged the overruling of defendant's motion for a new

In a prosecution for theft from the person,
correctly, special charges, in so far as they an. I trial on the ground of newly discovered evi-
nounced the same principles, were not called dence held not error.-Hilscher v. State (Tex.
for.-Tones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 217.

Cr. App.) 227.
Where dying declarations of deceased were
made while under the influence of opiates, the of the case for trial the court under the cir-

In a criminal case held that on the calling
court should have guarded the matter by an
appropriate
instruction.-Roberts v. State (Tex. portunity to employ other counsel or to have

cumstances sbould have given accused an op
Cr. App.) 221.

procured his witnesses.-Jackson v. State (Tex.
Court held required under the evidence to Cr. App.) 239.
charge that if accused's confession was not vol-

In a criminal case held that a motion for a
untary it must be disregarded.- Johnson v.
State (Tex. Or. App.) 223.

new trial should have been granted. Jack-

son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239.
In a prosecution for murder, a charge that,
if the jury believed that after defendant jus-

In a criminal case, certain evidence relied on
tifiably fired the first shot deceased ran and shown to be such. —Sexton v. State (Tex. Cr.

as newly discovered held not to have been
defendant pursued and killed him, though he
did not believe himself then in danger, defend- | App.) 348.
ant was guilty, was not on the weight of evi- In a criminal case, certain evidence held no
dence in assuming that deceased fled.—Cole- ground for a new trial on the ground of newly
man v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

discovered evidence.-Sexton v. State (Tex. Cr.
On prosecution for crime, charge as to effect App.) 318.
of evidence of defendant's intoxication held er- In prosecution for bringing stolen horses into
roneous, as in violation of statute prohibiting the state, new trial should have been granted on
charges on weight of testimony.-Tally v. State the ground of the absence of a certain witness.-
(Tex, Cr. App.) 339.

Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 809.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

was

« AnteriorContinuar »