Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Where the grantee has knowledge that the
grantor intends to defraud his creditors, the
question whether consideration was paid is
not material.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)
1082.

As under Rev. St. Mo. 1899, § 3616, a home-
stead is exempt from attachment and execution,
a conveyance thereof by husband to wife is
not fraudulent as to his creditors.-Reed Bros.
v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

A deed of trust held not within Rev. St. 1899,
§ 3397, avoiding deeds conveying chattels to the
use of the grantor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo.
App.) 131.

A deed of trust held not void as to creditors
because of provision for sale of real estate at
request of mortgagor.-Hasbrouck v. Rich (Mo.
App.) 131.

§ 2. Remedies of creditors and purchas.

ers.

*A wife's bare statement that the conveyance
to her by her insolvent husband was in con-
sideration of a loan made years before held in-
sufficient to prevent the conveyance being treat-
ed as fraudulent.-Waters v. Merrit Pants Co.
(Ark.) 879.

In a suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudu-
lent toward creditors, evidence held to charge
the grantee with notice of the grantor's fraudu-
lent purpose.-Brite v. Guy (Ky.) 1069.

A conveyance by a husband in failing cir-
cumstances to his wife places upon the gran-
tee the burden of proving the good faith of
the transaction.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)
1082.

In a suit to set aside a fraudulent convey-
ance, evidence held to support findings that
the grantee had knowledge of the fraudulent
intent of the grantor and that no considera-
tion was paid.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)
1082.

In order to set aside a deed at the instance
of a creditor, the proof need not establish fraud
beyond all doubt.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)
1082.

In an action to set aside a conveyance as
fraudulent, fraud may be proved by circum-
stantial evidence.-Wiggington v. Minter (Ky.)
1082.

Question as to whether the garnishee held
moneys in fraud of defendant's creditors held
under the evidence one for the jury.-White v.
Gibson (Mo. App.) 120.

Where there was evidence of conspiracy be-
tween defendant and the garnishee to defraud
the defendant's creditors, it was error not to
permit plaintiff to introduce the application
of defendant to be discharged in bankruptcy.-
White v. Gibson (Mo. App.) 120.

On an issue whether a transfer by an insol-
vent was fraudulent, evidence that shortly be
fore the transfer the insolvent had transferred
other property to another party for less than
it was worth was admissible.-Horstman v.
Little (Tex. Civ. App.) 256.

FREIGHT.

Delay in shipment, see "Carriers," § 1.
GAMING.

See "Lotteries."

GARNISHMENT.

See "Attachment"; "Execution."

1. Nature and grounds.
*Act Feb. 27, 1867 (Laws 1866-67, p. 157)
82 (Kirby's Dig. § 3707), relative to issuance
of garnishment to another county from a circuit
court on a justice's judgment filed therein, held
repealed by Act 1889, entitled "An act to pro-
vide the procedure in judicial garnishment."
Acts 1889, p. 168.-St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v.
Bowman (Ark.) 1033.

Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 3705, 4631-4633, 4634,
held, a writ of garnishment may issue to an-
other county from a circuit court on a justice's
judgment filed therein.-St. Louis & S. F. R.
Co. v. Bowman (Ark.) 1033.

2. Persons and property subject to
garnishment.

A creditor held entitled to reach the interest
of a tenant in a gathered crop, placed in the
hands of the landlord as security for debts, by
garnishment.-Groesbeck v. Evans (Tex. Civ.
App.) 889.

GIFTS.

Charitable gifts, see "Charities."
To wife, see "Husband and Wife," § 2.
Transfer taxes, see "Taxation," § 3.

GOOD FAITH.

Of purchaser, see "Bills and Notes," § 3;
"Sales," § 4.

GOVERNOR.

Statute authorizing commutation of sentence as
invasion of pardoning power, see "Constitu-
tional Law," § 1.

GRAND JURY.

See "Indictment and Information."

GRANTS.

Of public lands, see "Public Lands."

GUARANTY.

See "Indemnity"; "Principal and Surety."
Acceptance of check as guaranty, see "Bills
and Notes," § 1.

Requirements of statute of frauds, see "Frauds,
Statute of," § 1.

Review of findings, see "Appeal and Er-
ror," § 21.

1. Discharge of guarantor.

Where a contract of guaranty was changed
without the guarantors' knowledge, that the in-
debtedness accrued before the alteration can-
not preclude the guarantors from insisting on
their discharge.-John A. Tolman Co. v. Hun-
ter (Mo. App.) 636.

GUARDIAN AND WARD.

Joinder of causes of action between, see "Ac-
tion." § 3.

Liability of guardian of indigent insane person
for support of ward, see "Paupers," § 1.

§ 1. Custody and care of ward's person
and estate.

Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 3804, 3805, 3808, a
guardian held chargeable with interest because
of his failure to make a loan of his ward's
money. Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.

§ 2. Accounting and settlement.

A guardian must introduce evidence to sus-

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

tain the challenged items of his final account.-
Merritt v. Wallace (Ark.) 876.

Under Rev. St. 1889, § 5329, a settlement
made by a guardian, without filing the exhibit
and giving the notice required by statute, held
not a final settlement, but merely to have the
effect of an annual settlement as prima facie
evidence.-May v. May (Mo. Sup.) 75.

The final settlement of a guardian stands up-
on the same footing as a judgment, and is con-
clusive as to all proper subjects of account in-
cluded and involved.-May v. May (Mo. Sup.)

75.

HABEAS CORPUS.

§ 1. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-
lief.
On habeas corpus, where bail is the only ques-
tion, errors of the trial judge in rejecting or
admitting certain facts will not be considered
on appeal.-Ex parte Parker (Tex. Cr. App.)
230.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

HOMESTEAD.

Where a petition for habeas corpus is dis- See "Wills," § 1.
missed, it is equivalent to a refusal to grant
the writ, and the remedy is by another applica-
tion.-Ex parte Billups (Tex. Cr. App.) 347.
Where, after an appeal from a judgment in
habeas corpus admitting appellant to bail, he
gives bond and is liberated, the appeal will be
dismissed.-Ex parte Elmore (Tex. Cr. App.)

347.

[blocks in formation]

Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do-
main," § 1.
Duty of county clerk as to transmission of
transcript in highway proceedings, see "Cer-
tiorari," § 1.

Restraining opening road, see "Injunction,"
§ 1.

See "Exemptions."
Conveyance of in fraud of creditors, see
"Fraudulent Conveyances," § 1.

§ 1. Nature, acquisition, and extent.
Under the express provisions of Kirby's Dig.
§ 3902, the debtor's right of homestead is not
forfeited by his omission to claim it as ex-
empt before sale on execution.-Isbell v. Jones
(Ark.) 593.

Where legal title to homestead is in wife, she
is entitled to the rents and profits against cred-
itors of husband.-Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.)
929.

The fee of the homestead of a widow is liable
to sale, subject to her right, by order of the
probate court, for payment of debts of the
husband.-Robbins v. Boulware (Mo. Sup.) 674.

Where land has become a homestead prior to
the owner executing a note which did not in-
clude any of the purchase price of the land,
the payee could acquire no lien on the land as
security for the note.-Sweet v. Lyon (Tex.
Civ. App.) 384.

A judgment creditor of husband held not en-
titled to subject to lien vendor's lien notes
given the wife on sale of the homestead.-
Howard v. Mayher (Tex. Civ. App.) 409.

Homestead rights of tenant in common stated.
-Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.

§ 2. Transfer or incumbrance.
*Creditors may not complain of the convey-
ance to the wife of the homestead, although it
is bought by the husband with his own funds.--
Sharp v. Fitzhugh (Ark.) 929.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, conferring on a
homesteader the right to designate and choose
the part of the land which shall be exempt
from execution under section 3616, a wife is
entitled to select the particular part of land
conveyed to her by her husband, to the value
of the amount of exemption, which she will
son (Mo. Sup.) 71.

§ 1. Establishment, alteration, and dis-retain as a homestead.-Reed Bros. v. Nichol-

continuance.

Acts 24th Leg. Sess. Laws 1895, p. 213, c.
132, constituting a special road law for certain
counties, and incorporating the provisions of
the railroad law (amended by Acts 26th Leg.
Gen. Laws 1899, p. 105, c. 70) regulating the
condemnation of land, is as to the condemnation
of land for road purposes inconsistent with, and

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3616, relating to home-
stead exemptions, where land is subject to a
mortgage, the homesteader held entitled to a
homestead to the amount of the exemption in
what remains of the total value of the land
after the mortgage is deducted.-Reed Bros. v.
Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

[blocks in formation]

Under Const. art. 16, § 50, the county court
has no jurisdiction to sell the homestead of a
lunatic to pay the ordinary debts of the estate,
and a purchaser thereunder acquires no title.
--Griffin v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 493.

3. Rights of surviving husband, wife,
children, or heirs.

In partition, the fee-simple interest of infants
should be laid off with respect to their rights,
given by Ky. St. 1903, § 1707, to occupy the
homestead of their deceased father during their
minority.-Campbell v. Asher (Ky.) 1067.

en-

A widow with no minor children was
titled to the crops growing on the homestead
at the time of the husband's death.-Mahoney
v. Nevins (Mo. Sup.) 731.
§ 4.

Abandonment, waiver, or forfei-
ture.

*In a suit to restrain a levy on a homestead,
an instruction as to intent to abandon held
erroneous as a charge on the weight of evi-
dence.-Lynch v. McGown (Tex. Civ. App.)
894.

$ 5. Protection and enforcement of
rights.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, where an exe-
cution is levied on a homestead, the sale is
void unless the homesteader is given a right to
make his selection. Kessner v. Phillips (Mo.
Sup.) 66.

In a proceeding in equity to set aside a con-
veyance of land by a husband to his wife as
fraudulent to creditors, powers of court in
respect to finding and decree, where the land
is occupied as a homestead, defined.-Reed
Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

[blocks in formation]

"Criminal Law,"

Admissions by accused, see
§ 9.
Competency of jurors, see "Jury," § 3.
Competency of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 1.
Credibility, impeachment and contradiction of
witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 3.
Documentary evidence, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 10.

Evidence of character of accused, see "Criminal
Law," & 8.

Evidence of similar offenses, see "Criminal
Law," § 8.
Examination of witnesses, see "Witnesses,"
§ 2.

Hearsay, see "Criminal Law," § 9.
Indictment in general, see "Indictment and In-
formation," § 2.
Instructions in general, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 17.

"Criminal Law," § 26.

Opinion evidence, see "Criminal Law," § 11.
Questions presented for review, see "Criminal
Law," § 24.
Relevancy of evidence and res gestæ, see
"Criminal Law," § 7.
Review in general, see
1. The homicide.
Pocket knives are not per se deadly weap-
ons.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
The bare fact that a wound inflicted by a
weapon produced death is not conclusive that
it was
(Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
a deadly weapon.-Craiger v. State

Even courts of equity are bound by the home-82. Murder.
stead laws of the state, and cannot, in proceed- the person they rob, shooting at them in self-
Robbers held not guilty of homicide, where
ings to enforce a judgment, order the home-defense, kills a third person.-Commonwealth
stead interest paid to the debtor in cash in-
stead of allowing him to designate the partic-
ular piece of the land he will hold as such
homestead. Reed Bros. V. Nicholson (Mo.
Sup.) 71.

In a proceeding to set aside a conveyance of

land by a husband to his wife as fraudulent
to creditors, evidence examined, and held in-
sufficient to show a reduction by the husband
to his possession of the wife's money invested
by him in the land, so as to entitle him to such
money under the rules of the common law.-
Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3617, relating to
homestead exemptions, a sheriff's sale of land
subject to a homestead, without compliance
with the statute, is void.-Reed Bros. v. Nich-
olson (Mo. Sup.) 71.

Whether land subject to a mortgage exceeds
in value the $1,500 homestead exemption over
and above the mortgage can only be ascertain-
ed by commissioners appointed to value the
land, as the statutes do not confer power on
the court-even on a court of equity-to de-
termine the question.-Reed Bros. v. Nicholson
(Mo. Sup.) 71.

In proceedings to enforce a judgment, the set-
ting apart of a homestead in kind held possible

v. Moore (Ky.) 1085.

The fact that a participant in a homicide
flees from the scene thereof before the fatal
shot is fired held not to relieve him from crim-

inal responsibility.-State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.)

746.

3. Manslaughter.

The provocation that will reduce a homicide
to manslaughter must arise at the time of the
killing.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

A husband is entitled to the custody of his
wife and to use force against her father to
obtain custody of her, and is guilty of man-
slaughter only, on killing the father while under
excitement growing out of the difficulty.-Cole
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

*Homicide held not manslaughter when de-
fendant had cooling time after previous alter-
cation.-Franks v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 923.
$ 4. Assault with intent to kill.

Without a specific intent to kill there can be
no assault with intent to murder.-Reyes v.
State (Tex. Ct. App.) 245.

§ 5. Excusable or justifiable homicide.
To render one guilty of provoking a diffi-
culty, he must be shown to have used some lan-
*Point annotated. See syllabus.

guage or done some act with that intent.-Gar-
za v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence held
inadmissible that a pistol used by deceased in
the conflict was unloaded, which fact was not
known to accused.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr.

To render one guilty of provoking a diffi-
culty, it must be shown that he did some act
at the time calculated to have that effect. App.) 221.
Pedro v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 233.

[ocr errors]

Law of self-defense as applied to one accused
of assault with intent to commit murder held
not applicable to accused personally, so that
accused's right of self-defense would be same
as that of person in whose defense he was act-
ing.-Martinez v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 234.
A husband held entitled to the custody of his
wife and to the right of self-defense on danger
to his life arising out of his efforts to secure
her custody from her father.-Cole v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

*Mere pursuit of a person with intent to
bring on a difficulty held not to deprive pur-
suer of right of self-defense.-Franks v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 923.

8 6.

Indictment and information.
An indictment for murder held not defective,
because the word "willingly" was used there-
in, instead of "willfully."-Daniels v. State
(Ark.) 844.

Information in homicide held to have suf-
ficiently charged defendants with having in-
flicted the wound upon deceased from which
he died.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

§ 7. Evidence-Admissibility in general.
*In a prosecution for murder by shooting with
a pistol, it was improper to ask a witness
whether defendant was in the habit of carrying
a pistol or had that reputation.-Newman v.
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

On a prosecution for the murder of defend-
ant's husband, held proper to admit evidence of
a conversation by a witness with defendant a
short time before the homicide.-State v. Cum-
mings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

In homicide, statement of defendant held
competent to show motive and intent.-State
v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In homicide, held not error to exclude cer-
tain testimony as to whether defendant insti-
gated the principal actor to commit the crime.
-State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.) 746.

In a prosecution for murder, the rifle with
which defendant killed deceased is admissible
in evidence.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
203.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence that
defendant did not indorse the religious views
of deceased was competent on the question of
motive.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, a note written
by defendant to deceased three days before the
killing, warning him to keep his stock out of
defendant's pasture, held admissible.-Long v.
State (Tex. Čr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence of
certain threats by defendant against deceased
held admissible.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

203.

In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence
as to threats made by defendant a year be-
fore the homicide held admissible as original
as well as impeaching testimony.-Long v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, held error to
exclude testimony by accused that deceased's
relations with his children were friendly, to
show that deceased could procure the children
to carry a note to his wife.-Upton v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 212.

In a prosecution for murder, where the diffi-
culty arose from a report imputed to accused,
it was error to exclude evidence by accused
that he did not start the report.-Roberts v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.

On a prosecution for murder alleged to have
been committed for the purpose of procuring
decedent's money, certain evidence held admis-
sible in behalf of defendant as tending to show
that another committed the crime.-Johnson v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.

In a prosecution for murder, certain evidence
held not to raise the issue of manslaughter,
and inadmissible.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 238.

In a prosecution for murder, held not error
to permit a witness to testify to a statement
with the court's explanation in the bill of ex-
of defendant, when considered in connection
ceptions.-Hall v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 244.

A defendant on trial for murder relying on
self-defense held entitled to prove acts tend-
ing to show the desperate character of decedent.
--Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

On a trial for homicide, the admission of
evidence of blood on the ground where the homi-
cide occurred and of the wounds of decedent
held not error.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
341.

On a trial for murder, the exclusion of evi-
dence as to what defendant had stated about
his family troubles held error.-Cole v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

On the trial of defendant for the murder of
his father-in-law, letters written by defendant
to his wife held admissible.-Cole v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 341.

On a trial for homicide, certain evidence re-
lating to decedent's physical condition held im-
proper.-Cole v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence that a
short time before deceased was killed he was
drunk and quarrelsome held admissible, if de-
fendant had knowledge of these facts.-Crow
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 814.

§ 8.

Dying declarations.
On prosecution for homicide, dying declara-
tions of deceased held admissible. State v.
Craig (Mo. Sup.) 641.

In a prosecution for murder, held not error to
admit oral evidence of a dying declaration of
deceased, objected to on the ground that a dy-
ing declaration had been taken in writing.-
Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

In a prosecution for murder, a statement by
deceased to his physician the morning after
the shooting held admissible as a part of the
predicate for the introduction of a dying dec-
laration.-Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 203.

Sufficient predicate held laid for the admis-
sion of dying declarations.-Roberts v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 221.

9.

Weight and sufficiency.
Evidence held to support a conviction for
murder in the second degree.-Daniels v. State
(Ark.) 844.

On a prosecution for murder, evidence con-
sidered, and held sufficient to corroborate the
testimony of an accomplice. — Chancellor v.
State (Ark.) 880.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a convic- | ing right of self-defense with provoking diffi-
tion of murder in the first degree.-Moore v. culty.-Craiger v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.
State (Ark.) 946; Goley v. Same (Ark.) 952.

In a prosecution for assault with intent to
kill, evidence held sufficient to show that de-
fendants were guilty of aggravated assault.
-Hinson v. State (Ark.) 947.

Evidence on trial for murder held to show
that the death of decedent resulted from the
act of defendant.-Casteel v. State (Ark.) 1004.
In a prosecution for murder, evidence held
sufficient to support a conviction.-Newman v.
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

On prosecution for murder, evidence held to
identify defendant as murderer.-State v. Heu-
sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.

On a prosecution for murder, evidence held
to establish the corpus delicti.-State v. Heu-
sack (Mo. Sup.) 21.

[blocks in formation]

§ 10. Trial.

Under Kirby's Dig. §§ 1765, 2387, held, on a
prosecution for murder, that an instruction that
matters of mitigation must be shown by a
preponderance of the evidence was erroneous.-
Cogburn v. State (Ark.) 822.

In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction
that deceased had a right to draw his gun,
and if defendant pressed him he would have a
right to use it, held proper.-Williams v. United
States (Ind. T.) 334.

*On a trial for homicide, an instruction held
to give defendant the same right to defend his
brother as himself.-McQueen v. Commonwealth
(Ky.) 1047.

On a trial for voluntary manslaughter, the
failure to charge with respect to defendant's
testimony held reversible error.-French
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1070.

V.

Where an indictment only charged murder
in the second degree, the court was not called
on to charge on murder in the first degree.
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.

In homicide, charge held a correct statement
of law of provoking the difficulty.-State v.
Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In homicide, charge on provocation of diffi-
culty held not open to the objection of predicat-
ing a "felonious intent upon condition."-State
v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In homicide, instructions on self-defense and
on provoking the difficulty held not in conflict.
-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.) 733.

In homicide, instruction on manslaughter,
hypothesized on a petty difficulty instigated by
defendant and a subsequent killing in self-
defense, held properly refused.-State v. Bailey
(Mo. Sup.) 733.

The terms "self-defense" and "bring on diffi-
culty," as used in the law of homicide, are self-
explanatory, and need not be specifically defin-
ed in instructions.-State v. Bailey (Mo. Sup.)
733.

On prosecution for homicide, defendant held
entitled to have Pen. Code, art. 717, relating
to the means by which the homicide was com-
mitted, given in the charge.-Craiger v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 208.

Defendant on prosecution for homicide held
entitled to a charge the converse of one limit-

On prosecution for homicide, defendant held
entitled to charge as to previous threats by de-
ceased to injure defendant, under Pen. Code
1895, art. 713.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 215.

Defendant on prosecution for homicide held
entitled to have Pen. Code 1895, arts. 651, 652,
relating to the cause of death, charged.--Arms-
worthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.

On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held
to raise the issue of self-defense.-Armsworthy
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.

On prosecution for homicide, evidence held to
entitle defendant to charge on aggravated as-
sault.-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)

215.

On a prosecution for homicide, evidence held
to entitle defendant to charge on manslaughter.
-Armsworthy v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 215.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence held
not to suggest the issue of provoking the dif-
ficulty on the part of accused.-Roberts v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.

In a prosecution for murder, the evidence
held to warrant a charge with reference to self-
defense.-Roberts v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 221.

Evidence on a prosecution for murder held to
require the submission to the jury of the issue
of murder in the second degree. Johnson v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) LED.

222

Evidence on prosecution for assault with in-
tent to murder held to require a charge that,
if defendant's friend, in whose behalf defend-
ant interfered, had no intention of provoking
difficulty, and did no act to bring it on, his
friend's right of self-defense was complete.-
Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.

Defendant, on prosecution for assault with
intent to murder, held not entitled to a charge
on self-defense, but to a charge confined to af-
firmance of his right to interfere in behalf of
his friend. Garza v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 231.

Evidence on prosecution for assault with in-
tent to murder held to justify charge on pro-
voking difficulty.-Garza v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 231.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge held
not erroneous as limiting defendant's right of
self-defense.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
238.

In a prosecution for murder, an instruction
that, when danger of death or serious bodily
injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it,
was correct, and not erroneous as limiting de-
fendant's right to act on apparent danger.-
Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

In a prosecution for murder, an instruction
that, when danger of death or serious bodily
injury ceases, the right to kill ceases with it,
held applicable.-Coleman v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 238.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge on
the appearance of danger.-Coleman v. State
self-defense held not erroneous as eliminating
(Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

In a prosecution for murder, an instruction
as to threats held not erroneous.-Coleman v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

On a prosecution for assault with intent to
murder, held the duty of the court to have in-
structed on a lesser degree of the offense.-
Jackson v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239.

On a prosecution for assault with intent to
murder, held that the court should have in-
Point annotated. See syllabus.

« AnteriorContinuar »