In a prosecution for larceny, error in admit-
ting certain evidence held not shown by record.
--Johnson v. State (Ark.) 905.

Where the record in a criminal case disclos-
ed that the jury were placed in charge of a
"sworn bailiff," it would be presumed after ver-
dict that the bailiff was "duly sworn."-Wil-
liams v. United States (Ind. T.) 334.

The Supreme Court, on appeal in a criminal
case, will review only such errors as were ad-
mitted and properly preserved by the record.
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

When an appellant assumes to point out spe-
cifically grounds of objection to a charge, it
will be presumed that he has no others to urge.
--Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

In the absence of a showing to the contrary,
it will be presumed, on a criminal appeal, that
an application for a continuance, the overrul-
ing of which is complained of, was a second ap-
plication. Sliger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 243.

§ 27.- Harmless error.

On a trial for homicide, a verdict of guilty set
aside in view of the evidence and conditional
verdict originally rendered.-Ince v. State (Ark.)
818.

The remarks of the court, on refusing to re-
ceive the jury's verdict in a homicide case and
directing them to retire, held not reversible er-
ror.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

Where, on defendant's objection to certain
evidence, the jury are instructed that it is
incompetent, it will not be considered on ap-
peal.-Johnson v. State (Ark.) 905.

Argument of prosecuting attorney as to effect
of certain impeaching testimony held improper
and prejudicial.-Hinson v. State (Ark.) 947.
Where the record raises a presumption of
consent by accused to a suspension of a for-
mer prosecution, parol proof by the state of
accused's express consent to such suspension is
immaterial and harmless.-Burnett v. State
(Ark.) 956.

In a prosecution for murder, argument of the
prosecuting attorney held not cause for rever-
sal.-Byrd v. State (Ark.) 974.

On a trial for murder, the error in excluding
evidence contradicting the testimony of a wit-
ness held not prejudicial.-Casteel v. State
(Ark.) 1004.

*The admission of incompetent evidence over
objection is harmless, where the same facts are
shown by other evidence not objected to.-
Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.

In a prosecution for the violation of Kirby's
Dig. § 1680, making it a crime to furnish a
prisoner with means to escape, evidence that
the prisoner assisted was tried and acquitted
held irrelevant but nonprejudicial.-Maxey v.
State (Ark.) 1009.

In a criminal prosecution, remarks of prose-
cuting attorney merely drawing inferences from
testimony before the jury are not prejudicial.—
Maxey v. State (Ark.) 1009.

On a prosecution for the murder of defendant's
husband, testimony of a police officer as to the
business in which deceased was engaged at the
and nature of the business, though immaterial,
time witness first knew him, and the character
was not reversible error.-State v. Cummings
(Mo. Sup.) 706.

On a prosecution for arson, held, that there
was no prejudicial error in an instruction call-
ing for a conviction, if the crime was com-
when the amended information was filed.-
mitted within three years prior to the date
State v. Hunt (Mo. Sup.) 719.

In homicide, the admission in evidence of a
vile epithet applied by defendant after the kill-
ing to nonunion hack drivers, to which class
deceased belonged, was not ground for reversal.
-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

tions to jurors in a murder case not to make
Under Code Cr. Proc. arts. 817, 821, instruc-
affidavits as to their misconduct, if any, held
not prejudicial to defendant.-Long v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

Showing made on motion for new trial in a
prosecution for murder held not to indicate
that defendant was prejudiced by statements
made in the jury room as to how a former jury
had stood.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.
In a prosecution for robbery, the admission of
certain evidence, if erroneous, held not re-
versible error.-Tones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
217.

The mere inquiry by one of the jurors during
their deliberations, "Why did defendant not
testify?" held not misconduct of the jury.-
Parrish v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.

The admission of certain evidence on a trial
for murder held not prejudicial.-Cole v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

In a criminal prosecution, the exclusion of evi-
dence of a conversation cannot be regarded as
injurious to defendant where it is not shown
what the conversation was.-Ellington v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 361.

In a prosecution for theft from the person, a
charge that the theft must be committed with-
out the knowledge of the person held, if erro-
neous, harmless as to defendant. Nelson v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 807.

-----

As subject to levy on execution, see "Execu-
Excessive damages for injuries to crops, see
tion," § 1.
"Damages," § 4.

Injuries to, caused by flowage, see "Waters
and Water Courses," § 2.
Landlord's lien for rent, see "Landlord and Ten-
ant," § 4.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSSINGS.

Accidents at railroad crossing, see “Railroads,"

§ 6.

CRUELTY.

CUSTODY.

Of child, see "Parent and Child."
Of jury, see "Criminal Law," § 18.

CUSTOMS AND USAGES.

As affecting landowner's right to recover for-
feit money paid broker, see "Brokers," § 2.

DAMAGES.

*In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff
may recover damages for pain which will
be suffered in the future as a result of the in-
jury.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo.
App.) 1119.

A carrier having failed to perform a contract
to furnish certain cars for the shipment of cat-
tle as agreed, the shipper held not bound to
arrange for the shipment for a part of the dis-

tance over such carrier's line in order to re-
duce the damages.-Pecos River R. Co. v.
Latham (Tex. Civ. App.) 392.

& T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ.
App.) 891.

Damages for particular injuries.
See "Assault and Battery," § 1; "Death," § 1.
Breach by buyer of contract for sale of goods,
see "Sales," § 6.

Breach of contract to transport passenger,
see "Carriers," § 5.

Breach of covenant, see "Covenants," § 2.
Breach of warranty, see "Sales," §§ 5, 7.

Ejection of passenger, see "Carriers," § 8.
Failure to furnish cars, see "Carriers," § 1.
From malicious acts of servant, see "Master
and Servant," § 10.

From overflow, see "Waters and Water
Courses," § 2.

Injuries to live stock by carrier, see "Carriers,"
$ 2.

Refusal of landlord to deliver possession of
demised premises, see "Landlord and Tenant," |
$ 3.

To live stock by railroads, see "Railroads, § 8.
§ 1. Nature and grounds in general.
Where one who has contracted to erect build-
ings wholly fails to perform any part of his con-
tract, the other party may recover damages,
though he does not proceed with the erection
of the buildings. - Simons v. Wittmann (Mo.
App.) 791.

§ 2. Grounds and subjects of compen-
satory damages.

Where one employed to repair the cylinder
of an engine improperly delayed its return, held
not liable for special damage caused by the idle-
ness of the mill during the delay.-Pine Bluff
Iron Works v. Boling & Bro. (Ark.) 306.

3. Measure of damages.

In an action for personal injuries, damages
should be estimated on the basis of compensa-
tion. Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co.
(Mo. App.) 147.

Measure of damages for personal injuries as
dependent on physician's services stated. Nel-
son v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 781.

Under Rev. St. 1899, c. 51, a married woman
who runs a boarding house is entitled to the
profits thereof and to damages resulting from
personal injuries rendering her unable to pursue
her vocation.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Co. (Mo. App.) 781.

The measure of damages for breach of a con-
tract to erect a building stated.-Simons v.
Wittmann (Mo. App.) 791.

4. Inadequate and excessive damages.
In an action against a street railroad for
injuries, an award of $23,400 held excessive.-
Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.)
50.

injuries caused by falling over an obstruction
Under the facts in a suit against a city for

in a street, a verdict for $1 held the result of
prejudice.-Fischer v. City of St. Louis (Mo.
Sup.) 82.

In an action for injuries, verdict for $5,000
held not excessive. -Haxton v. Kansas City
(Mo. Sup.) 714.

In an action for injuries to a servant, a ver-
Fordyce (Mo. Sup.) 679.
dict for $7,500 held not excessive.-Smith v.

*In an action for injuries, held, that a verdict
for $6,000 was not excessive.-Rapp v. St. Lou-
is Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 865.

Verdict for $2,500 in action against street
railroad for personal injuries held not grossly
excessive.-Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R.
Co. (Mo. App.) 147.

Pain of body and mental anguish resulting
from personal injuries are elements that enter
into the estimation of compensatory damages.
Waechter v. St. Louis & M. R. R. Co. (Mo.
App.) 147.

An allowance of damages for future pain and
suffering likely to result from personal injuries
should be confined to such damages as are rea-
sonably certain to result from the injuries.
Waddell v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)
765.

The fact that reasonable obligations, such as
medical attention, etc., resulting from personal
injuries, have not been paid, does not prevent a
recovery therefor.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St.
Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 781.

Reynolds v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.)
50.

In an action for injuries to a physician which
interfered with his practice, it was proper to
permit him to testify as to his earnings for that
month in the previous year.-Sluder v. St. Louis
Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.

In an action for breach of warranty of sound-
ness of hogs, evidence held insufficient to au-
thorize an award of substantial damages.-
Narr v. Norman (Mo. App.) 122.

Where testimony as to physician's services,
made necessary by personal injuries, fails to
show the amount of the charge or the reasonable
value of the services, a recovery for liability in-
curred for such services cannot be sustained.-
Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.)
781.

A petition alleging the payment of sums of
money for medical attention, etc., made neces-
sary by personal injuries, does not authorize a
recovery for liabilities incurred for such items,
but not paid.-Nelson v. Metropolitan St. Ry.
Co. (Mo. App.) 781.

In an action for damages from the breach of
a contract to erect buildings, an allegation of
the petition held sufficient to justify admission
of evidence as to the reasonable cost of erecting
the buildings.-Simons v. Wittmann (Mo. App.)
791.

Damages not specially pleaded should not
be made an element of damage in the instruc-
tions. Stafford v. Adams (Mo. App.) 1130.

In an action for personal injuries, an instruc-
tion authorizing the recovery of damages for
the impairment of plaintiff's nervous system
and memory in addition to the damages to
which he was entitled on other grounds held
proper. Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Yates
(Tex. Civ. App.) 283.

In an action for injuries to plaintiff's wife,
the refusal to caution the jury not to allow
more than the amount claimed in the petition
for medical expenses held not error.-San An-
tonio Traction Co. v. Menk (Tex. Civ. App.)
290.

In action for killing horse on track,
where petition alleged market value, evidence
of intrinsic value for special purpose held in-
admissible.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cooper
(Tex. Civ. App.) 301.

In an action for injuries, evidence held suffi-
cient to justify a recovery for time lost in the
past and future.-Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Dowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 415.

In an action for injuries, an instruction au-
thorizing a recovery for expenses incurred for
physician and medicine held not objectionable
as authorizing a recovery for services of a
physician, in the absence of evidence of the
reasonable value thereof.-Texas & P. Ry. Co.
v. McDowell (Tex. Civ. App.) 415.

In an action for death, defendant held enti-
tled, under the general issue, to show that de-
cedent, at the time she sustained the injuries,
had a disease which would have caused her
death as soon as she did die, independent of the
injuries. Hardin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 440.

Petition for injuries held to state the damages
sustained by plaintiff with sufficient particular-
ity.-El Paso & S. W. Ry. Co. v. Vizard (Tex.
Civ. App.) 457.

In an action for injuries, a petition held not
subject to exception for indefiniteness of allega-
tion as to the nature and extent of the inju-
ries.-Alexander v. McGaffey (Tex. Civ. App.)

462.

In an action by an employé for injuries
through negligence, defendant held entitled to
show by plaintiff's medical witness that his orig-
inal diagnosis of the injuries was incompatible
with subsequent developments.-Chicago, R. I.
& M. Ry. Co. v. Harton (Tex. Civ. App.) 857.

An instruction held to authorize double dam-

ages for diminished capacity to labor and earn
money. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas
v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ. App.) 891.

The charge held not to assume that there
would necessarily be future suffering from per-
sonal injuries received.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry.
Co. of Texas v. Nesbit (Tex. Civ. App.) 891.

DAMS.

See "Waters and Water Courses," § 2.

DEATH.

Caused by operation of railroad, see “Rail-
roads," §§ 5-7.

Competency of evidence in action for wrong-
ful death, see "Evidence," § 2.
Declarations as evidence in action for wrongful
death, see "Evidence," § 4.

Instructions in general in action for,
"Trial," §§ 5, 11.

see

Liability of carrier for death of passenger, see
"Carriers," § 6.

Of party to action ground for abatement, see
"Abatement and Revival," § 1.
Pleading and evidence of damages, see "Dam-
ages," § 5.

1. Actions for causing death.

*In an action against a railroad for wrongful
death, a verdict for $10,000 held not excessive.
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Ark.)
908, 990.

*Testimony of a life insurance agent as to
the expectancy of life, as shown by the mortality
tables, of a man of decedent's age, and an es-
timate of the amount required to purchase an
annuity equal to his income, held admissible.
-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt (Ark.)
908, 990.

*In action for death, a verdict for $13,190
held not excessive.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry.
Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.

*In an action for death, plaintiff was en-
titled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per
annum on the amount of damages from the
date of deceased's death to the date of recov-
ery.--St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Cleere
(Ark.) 995.

*Where, after the commencement of an ac-
tion by a widow as administratrix of her de-
ceased husband to recover damages for his
death, she remarried, held proper to instruct
that the jury should not consider the remar
riage of the widow as affecting the assess-
ment of damages.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry.
Co. v. Cleere (Ark.) 995.

*An action for death by wrongful act is
transitory.-Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v.
McGinty (Ark.) 1001.

*Widow and children of a decedent held en-
titled to sue for his death by negligent act
on refusal of administrator to sue, under Civ.
Code, § 24, notwithstanding Const. § 241, Civ.
Code, § 21, and Ky. St. 1903, § 3882.-McLe-
more v. Sebree Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 1062.

In an action for the death of an eight-year
old child at a railroad crossing, held that the
question whether the child was sui juris was
one for the jury.-Holmes v. Missouri Pac. Ry.
Co. (Mo. Sup.) 623.