the goods.-Woods v. Thompson (Mo. App.)
1126.
See "Accord and Satisfaction"; "Payment";
"Release."
Of mortgage, see "Mortgages," § 2.
"Judgment," § 11.
SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Following proceeds of sale of invalid school
district bonds, see "Trusts," § 3.
Jurisdiction of particular courts of actions in-
volving title to office of school director, see
"Courts," § 4.
Parties to action on bonds issued by school
district, see "Parties," § 1.
Questions presented for review on quo warranto
to oust school director, see
Error," § 2.
Appeal and
The trustees elected for a graded common
school district held properly elected, within Ky.
St. 1903, § 4471, and authorized to submit to
the voters the question of the issuance of bonds
as prescribed by section 4481-Lee v. Trustees
of Shepherdsville Graded Common School Dist.
No. 4 (Ky.) 1071.
Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 9759, 9760, held not
required that a school director be a resident
taxpayer of the school district in which he is
elected. State ex inf. Sutton v. Fasse (Mo.
Sup.) 1.
A majority of the directors of a
school district held not entitled to withdraw the
notice of an election ordered under Rev. St.
1899, § 9861, to determine whether the dis-
trict should be changed into a village district.
-State ex rel. Gault v. Gill (Mo. Sup.) 628.
Rev. St. 1899, § 9861, held to authorize the
organization of any common school district into
a village district.-State ex rel. Gault v. Gill
(Mo. Sup.) 628.
Rev. St. 1899, § 9860, first adopted in Gen.
St. 1865, p. 274, c. 47, § 1, relating to the in-
corporation of village school districts, held to
apply to incorporated and unincorporated vil-
lages.-State ex rel. Gault v. Gill (Mo. Sup.)
628.
SECONDARY EVIDENCE.
In civil actions, see "Evidence," § 3.
Burden of proof, see "Criminal Law," § 6.
Contradiction of witnesses, see "Witnesses," § 3.
Time of trial, see "Criminal Law," § 14.
Former jeopardy, see "Criminal Law," § 5.
Instructions in general, see "Criminal Law,"
§ 17.
81. Criminal responsibility.
necessity of corroboration of prosecutrix held
not erroneous.-Burnett v. State (Ark.) 956.
*In a prosecution for seduction, a charge on
discharge one accused of seduction, on his of-
The statute held to authorize the court to
prosecutrix, though she refuses to do so.-
fering in good faith after conviction to marry
Commonwealth v. Akers (Ky.) 1108.
cluded.-Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
In a prosecution for seduction, evidence of a
subsequent offer of marriage by defendant, not
made to prosecutrix directly, held properly ex-
written to a third person by prosecutrix, show-
ing a vulgar and lascivious mind on her part,
In a prosecution for seduction, certain letters
were admissible.-Nolen
duct of prosecutrix subsequent to the alleged
App.) 242.
v. State (Tex. Cr.
offense held admissible to show her unchastity
In a prosecution for seduction, certain con-
prior to the alleged intercourse with defend-
ant.-Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
tution on her part may be considered by the
jury as a circumstance in passing on whether
In a prosecution for seduction, subsequent
she was probably chaste at the time of alleged
conduct of prosecutrix indicating general prosti-
seduction.-Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
instruct that subsequent conduct of prosecutrix
indicating general prostitution on her part is
to be considered only as a circumstance in
In a prosecution for seduction, court should
at the time of her alleged seduction.-Nolen v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
passing on whether she was probably chaste
entitled to acquittal, if promise of marriage was
not the sole reason of inducement.-Nolen v.
In a prosecution for seduction, defendant held
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 242.
The validity of the organization of a school
district held not subject to collateral attack
in a proceeding on relation of a taxpayer to
compel a county court clerk to extend taxes,
to which proceeding the school district was not
a party. State ex rel. School Dist. No. 1, Tp.
51, R. 17, Howard and Chariton Counties, v. See "Homicide," §§ 5, 10.
Miller (Mo. App.) 637.
tion for seduction.-Garlas v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 345.
Evidence held insufficient to support a convic-
A taxpayer held barred by laches from main-
taining mandamus to contest the validity of the
organization of a school district.-State ex rel.
School Dist. No. 1, Tp. 51, R. 17, Howard and
Chariton Counties, v. Miller (Mo. App.) 637.
To jurat on verification of information, see
"Indictment and Information," § 1.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
Right of search as defense to charge of robbery,
see "Robbery."
Seizure of goods to enforce vendor's lien on sale
of personalty, see "Sales," § 6.
Of process, see "Process," § 2.
SERVICES.
See "Master and Servant," § 2.
On appeal from justice's court, see "Justices
*Point annotated. See syllabus.
of the Peace," § 2.
SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM.
1. Carriage of goods.
In an action for loss of a cargo of brick
while being towed by one of defendant's steam-
ers under a private contract, whether defendant
held itself out as a common carrier for the
time being held for the jury.-Bassett & Stone
v. Aberdeen Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 318.
the same out of the statute of frauds.-Cross
v. Johnston (Ark.) 945.
SPENDTHRIFTS.
Spendthrift trusts, see "Trusts," § 1.
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS.
See "Intoxicating Liquors."
Requisites and validity of statutes in general,
see "Statutes," § 1.
Subject and title of statute, see "Statutes," § 2.
By witness inconsistent with testimony, see
"Witnesses," § 3.
Of agent as binding principal, see "Principal
and Agent," § 2.
Of mechanic's lien, see "Mechanics' Liens," § 1.
Of plaintiff's claim, see "Pleading," § 2.
Courts, see "Courts."
Legislative power, see "Constitutional Law,"
Legislative power over municipal corporation,
§ 1.
see "Municipal Corporations," § 3.
Public lands, see "Public Lands."
In an action for loss of a cargo of brick, on
an issue whether defendant was a common car-
§ 1. Property, contracts, and liabilities.
rier, the court should have charged that, if it
Contract of trustees of the state charitable
offered to carry for all persons indifferently on institutions for coal for four months in advance
such trips as the boat was then making, etc., held unauthorized under the statute, and there-
it was a common carrier, and liable, notwith-fore not enforceable.-Bunch v. Tipton (Ark.)
standing it was not guilty of negligence, but 888.
not otherwise.-Bassett & Stone v. Aberdeen
Coal & Mining Co. (Ky.) 318.
Laws impairing obligation of contracts, see
"Constitutional Law," § 2.
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.com.mx/books/content?id=mzoLAAAAYAAJ&output=html_text&pg=PA1216&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&q=%22upon+reason+or+is+the+result+of+whim,+caprice,+prejudice,+or+malice,%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1Awu8vHX1w5Gu2owSvqUgVLVBt2Q&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=919,1137,12,6)
Provisions relating to particular subjects.
See "Abatement and Revival," § 1; "Adop-
tion"; "Affidavits"; "Aliens," § 1; "Ani-
mals"; "Appeal and Error," § 10; "Bank-
ruptcy," § 1; "Clerks of Courts"; "Com-
merce," § 1; "Corporations," § 6; "Counties,'
881, 2; "Courts," § 1; "Death," § 1:
"Descent and Distribution": "Exceptions,
Bill of," 1; "Execution," § 4; "Garnish-
ment," § 1; "Highways," § 1; "Intoxicating
Liquors"; "Judgment," 88 4, 5; "Man-
damus," 1; "Master and Servant," § 6;
"Mechanics' Liens," § 1; "Mortgages," § 3;
"Municipal Corporations," §§ 1, 5, 6, 9
"New Trial," § 2; "Partition," § 1; "Paupers,'
§1; "Pleading," § 6; "Process," §1; "Quo
Warranto," § 1; "Railroads," §§ 1, 8;
"Schools and School Districts," § 1; "Taxa-
tion," §§ 2, 3; "Trusts," § 3; "Wills," §§ 1, 4.
Delegation of legislative power, see "Consti-
tutional Law," § 1.
Escape of prisoners, see "Rescue."
Indian court, see "Indians."
Liens on sales of personalty, see "Sales," § 6.
Statute of frauds, see "Frauds, Statute of."
Statute of limitations, see "Limitation of Ac-
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
f 1. Enactment, requisites, and validity | 5. § 30 (Kirby's Dig. § 5295).-State v. Moore
in general.
(Ark.) 881.
*The courts should declare an act of the Leg-
islature void only when the Constitution has
been plainly violated.-State v. Moore (Ark.)
881.
*The same presumption in favor of the valid-
ity of a legislative enactment is indulged with
reference to its form and the observance of the
constitutional prerequisites and conditions as
in case of the subject-matter of the legislation.
-State v. Moore (Ark.) 881.
Under Const. art. 11, an appropriation to pro-
mote the efficiency of the state guard is one to
defray necessary expenses of government, with-
in Const. art. 5, § 31.-State v. Moore (Ark.)
881.
Under Const. art. 5, §§ 30, 31, legislative de-
termination that certain expenses are necessary
is conclusive, so long as such expenses may be
necessary.-State v. Moore (Ark.) 881.
*Unconstitutionality of Workhouse Law, § 18
(Shannon's Code, § 7423), relative to commuta-
tion of sentence, held not to affect the validity
of the balance of the act.-Fite v. State (Tenn.)
§ 2. General and special or local laws.
Under Const. art. 6, §§ 1, 31, an act creating
a criminal court for a county held not obnox-
ious to article 4, § 53, subd. 32, relating to
special laws.-State v. Etchman (Mo. Sup.)
643.
§ 3. Subjects and titles of acts.
An appropriation to promote the efficiency of
state guard held not to embrace a double ap-
propriation, within the prohibition of Const. art.
4. Repeal, suspension, expiration, and
*Repeals by implication are not favored.-
Town of Benton v. Willis (Ark.) 1000.
5. Construction and operation.
known of a prior statute, and to have had ref-
erence thereto in enacting a subsequent one on
*The Legislature must be presumed to have
the same subject.-Town of Benton v. Willis
(Ark.) 1000.
terpretation, and it is re-enacted, it will be pre-
the same construction which was given to the
Where a statute has received a judicial in-
sumed the Legislature intended it should have
327.
earlier statute.-Walker v. Bobbitt (Tenn.)
be presumed to have known, when it passed the
In construing a statute, the Legislature must
tive power.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex.
Sup.) 542.
statute, the constitutional limits of its legisla-
to a special one, so far as is necessary to give
A general provision of a statute must yield
542.
effect to the particular subject of the special
provision.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.)
persuasive in a matter of doubtful statutory
construction.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex.
The legislative policy may be looked to as
Sup.) 542.
statute against constitutional objection, ascribe
to it a meaning at variance with its plain im-
The courts may not, in order to preserve a
port.-City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.) 542.
|Page 3451.....
Page 3452.....
ARKANSAS.
CONSTITUTION.
Art. 5, $$ 30, 31.
Art. 7, 88 4, 14.
Art. 9, § 1
Art. 9, 3,.
Art. 11
$$ 5785, 5786, 5792, 5793. 913
979 $8 6298-6300, 6314, 6315. 833
e, 30 Stat. 565 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
3451]
1898, July 1, ch. 541, §
70e, 30 Stat. 565, 566
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p.
3452]
1902, July 1, ch. 1362, §§
31-33, 32 Stat. 646-648. 308
$8 2947, 2952, 2954, 2955. 897
836 $$ 3705, 3707.
28688 3804, 3805, 3808.
585 Ch. 128, §§ 133, 134..... 1027
.1033 1866-67, p. 97, § 3.......1027
...... 8761866-67, p. 157, § 2.....1033
* Point annotated. See syllabus.
p. 213, ch.
Amended by Laws 1899,
132.
p. 105, ch. 70....
Consent to judgment, see "Judgment," § 2.
Corporate stock, see "Corporations," § 3.
Elevators in, as
riers," § 6.
1901, pp. 14-17, 67, ch. 4.
Austin City Charter
1901, p. 291, ch. 124..
2521903, p. 119, ch. 94.
*A recovery for injuries to a traveler by
collision with a street car held not barred by
his contributory negligence, if the servants in
charge of the car could have avoided the ac-
cident.-Louisville Ry. Co. v. Hoskins' Adm'r
(Ky.) 1087.
*An instruction in an action against a street
railroad company for injuries to a traveler
by collision
the question whether the motorman knew of
held bad, because eliminating
the traveler's peril.-Louisville Ry. Co. v.
common carriers, see "Car- Hoskins' Adm'r (Ky.) 1087.
STREET RAILROADS.
Appellate jurisdiction in action to determine
franchise rights, see "Appeal and Error," § 4.
Carriage of passengers, see "Carriers."
Election between causes of action against, see
"Pleading," § 7.
Excessive damages for personal injuries caused
by operation of, see "Damages," § 4.
Municipal regulations, see "Municipal Corpora-
tions," § 7.
Opinion evidence in action for injuries caused
by operation of, see "Evidence," § 9.
Right to grant franchise pending injunction to
restrain declaration of result of election on
question of annexation of territory to munici-
pality, see "Injunction," § 2.
Statement of separate causes of action against,
see "Pleading," § 2.
§ 1. Establishment, construction, and
Under an ordinance granting a franchise to a
street railroad company, compliance by the
company with certain conditions precedent to
the vesting of rights under the franchise held
required within a reasonable time.-Little Rock
Ry. & Electric Co. v. City of North Little
Rock (Ark.) 826.
Under an ordinance granting a franchise to a
street railway company, certain action by the
company held a reasonable and enforceable con-
dition precedent to the acquisition of any rights
under the franchise.-Little Rock Ry. & Elec-
tric Co. v. City of North Little Rock (Ark.)
826.
The question of the authority to revoke a
street railway franchise held not presented by
the pleadings and proof.-Little Rock Ry. &
Electric Co. v. City of North Little Rock (Ark.)
1026.
2. Regulation and operation.
*In an action against a street railroad com-
pany for injuries from a collision of car with
plaintiff's vehicle, evidence held to justify sub-
mission of defendant's negligence.-Hot Springs
St. R. Co. v. Charlton (Ark.) 1006.
In an action against a street railroad com-
Co. v. Hoskins' Adm'r (Ky.) 1087.
pany for injuries to a traveler, the refusal
to give an instruction asked the company
held error under the evidence.-Louisville Ry.
An ordinance of the city of St. Louis held,
railroad company, without any acceptance of
under St. Louis Scheme and Charter, art. 10,
§ 1, and article 3, § 26, a valid exercise of the
Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
city's police, power, and binding on a street
the ordinance on its part.-Sluder v. St. Louis
results of which a street railroad company is
A breach of an ordinance of the city of St.
liable to an individual.-Sluder v. St. Louis
Louis held to constitute negligence, for the
Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
of St. Louis exacted a higher degree of care
A contention that an ordinance of the city
Sluder v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
on the part of a street railroad than the com-
mon law, and was void, held without merit.-
with a street car, held not guilty of contribu-
tory negligence.-Sluder v. St. Louis Transit
Co. (Mo. Sup.) 648.
Occupant of a carriage, injured in a collision
shall not allow ladies or children to leave or
A city ordinance providing that conductors
(Mo. Sup.) 853.
enter cars while in motion is not unreasonable
or void. McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.
shall not allow ladies or children to leave or
enter cars while in motion, held a valid police
A city ordinance providing that conductors
regulation. McHugh v. St. Louis Transit Co.
(Mo. Sup.) 853.
tributory negligence in being on street car
track, the company is liable for any injury, if
*Though one may have been guilty of con-
it could have been prevented by ordinary care.-
Rapp v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 865.
pany for injuries to plaintiff in a collision with
his vehicle, held, that the question of defend-
*In an action against a street railroad com-
ant's negligence was for the jury.-Rapp v. St.
Louis Transit Co. (Mo. Sup.) 865.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.
|