see

It is not error to refuse a requested instruc- | the shares and entitled to their possession at
tion covered by the instructions given by the the time of the alleged conversion. -Newman v.
court.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. Glover Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo. Sup.) 6.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 515.

In an action for the conversion of corn, in-
Where a charge given at a party's roquest em- structions on damage held not erroneous.-Hana-
braces the substance of another requested way v. Wiseman (Tex. Civ. App.) 437.
charge, the party cannot complain of the refusal
to give the latter charge.- International & G.
N. R. Co. y. Glover (Tex. Civ. App.) 515.

TRUST COMPANIES.
$ 10. Objections and exceptions.

See "Corporations," $ 3.
The apparent assumption of a fact by an in-
struction, being a defect of form, held to call

TRUSTS.
for a special exception.-McElvaney v. Smith
(Ark.) 981.

Charitable trusts, see “Charities."

Combinations to monopolize trade, see “Mo-
$11. Construction and operation. nopolies,' $ 1.

In an action for injuries to a servant, instruc- Conveyances in trust for creditors, see “As-
tion held in conflict with, and not to cure the
error in, other instructions.Grayson-McLeod Estoppel to assert invalidity of trust deed, exe-

signments for Benefit of Creditors.”
Lumber Co. v. Carter (Ark.) 597.

cuted by corporation, see "Corporations," $ 2.
In an action for injuries at a crossing, error | Secret trusts, "Fraudulent Conveyan-
in an instruction held not cured by other in- ces, $ 1.
structions.-St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Trust deeds, see “Chattel Mortgages”; “Mort-
Hitt (Ark.) 911, 990.

gages."
An erroneous instruction is not cured by $ 1. Creation, existence, and validity.
subsequent correct ones, which do not refer to Though a constructive trust may be proved
it or in terms attempt to modify it.--City of by parol, the evidence is insufficient, unless "it is
Cleburne v. Gutta Percha & Rubber Mfg. Co. full, clear, and convincing.”—Tillar v. Henry
(Tex. Civ. App.) 300.

(Ark.) 573.
A charge must be read as a whole to deter- Evidence held insufficient to establish a con-
mine whether it is on the weight of the evidence structive trust of land purchased at a foreclo-
or confusing.-Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of sure sale.-Tillar v. Henry (Ark.) 573.
Texas v. Criswell Tex. Civ. App.) 373.

A mere preponderance of parol proof held in-
In an action against a carrier for death of sufficient to set aside a deed for fraud and es-
plaintiff's wife from its negligence and that of tablish a resulting trust.-McNutt v. McNatt
another carrier, an instruction held erroneous, (Ark.) 589.
as excluding liability for negligence of the lat-

Evidence held insufficient to sustain a decree
ter.—Hardin v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. setting aside a deed and establishing a result,
of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 440.

ing trust for fraud.-McNutt v. McNutt (Ark.)
In an action for injuries to an inexperienced 589.
servant, an instruction limiting the master's

*Constructive trusts resting in parol must be
duty to instruct to latent dangers held cured by established by clear and satisfactory evidence.
subsequent instruction.-Wood v. Texas Cotton -Crosby v. Henry (Ark.) 949.
Product Co. (Tex, Civ. App.) 496.
It is not proper to predicate error on a por: sulting trust, evidence held to support a finding

In a suit to procure the declaration of a re-
tion of a paragraph in a charge, and sever it that defendant bought the property as trustee
from the preceding part of the paragraph. - for plaintiff, and plaintiff paid for it.—Crosby
Texas Cent. Ry. Co. v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) v. Henry (Ark.) 919.
499.

*Payment of price by one for land bought by
$ 12. Verdict.

another, who orally agreed to hold it for the
A special verdict in a suit to determine the former, held to raise a resulting trust, notwith-
existence of a lien held sufficient basis for a standing the statute of frauds.-Crosby v.
judgment declaring a lien on the property for Henry (Ark.) 949.
which the note in controversy was given.-
Featherstone v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 470.

On an issue as to whether a father, in whose

name title to property was taken, or his daugh-
13. Waiver and correction of irregu- ter, was the actual purchaser of the property,
larities and errors.

evidence held to support a finding of the chan-
Where plaintiff alleges that she boarded a car cellor that the father was the purchaser.—
for the purpose of becoming a passenger, de- Bendy v. Mudford (Ark.) 999.
fendant cannot complain, after verdict, of in-
structions submitting to the jury to find wheth- -Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.) 66.

A deed held not to create a spendthrift trust.
er she was a passenger.-Corum v. Metropolitan
St. Ry. Co. (No. App.) 143.

Spendthrift trusts are recognized in Missouri.

-Kessner v. Phillips (Mo. Sup.) 66.
TRIAL OF RIGHT OF PROPERTY. In a suit by heirs to declare and establish a

resulting trust in land, the evidence considered,
See “Attachment," 8 2.

and held to show that defendant purchased the
land partly with money furnished by plaintiff's

intestate, taking the title in his own name, and
TROVER AND CONVERSION. that intestate had, and died with, an interest

therein corresponding to the amount of her
1. Acts constituting conversion and payment.-Stevenson v. Smith (Mo. Sup.) 86.
liability therefor.

Where only a part of the purchase money is
Demand and refusal are evidence of conver- furnished by the beneficiary, a resulting trust
sion.--Newman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (Mo. I will be declared for a proportionate share of
Sup.) 6.

the land bought.-Stevenson v. Smith (Mo.
8 2. Actions.

Sup.) 86.
In order to maintain trover for shares of In order to constitute a direct trust, no par-
stock, plaintiff must have been the owner of | ticular words are necessary; but there must

• Point annotated. See syllabus.

be a conveyance, a fund, and a beneficiary.- Purchasers at sale op execution, see "Exe
City of Austin v. Cahill (Tex. Sup.) 542.

cution,” $ 4.
In a suit by the heir of one of the payees of Questions presented for review in suit to fore
the principal of notes for partition thereof, pa-

close vendor's lien, see “Appeal and Er-
rol evidence held admissible to show that the ror," $ 2.
for their mother during her life.—Jones v. Day Right of purchaser to reformation of deed, see
payees of the principal held the same in trust Requirements of statute of frauds, see "Frauds,
(Tex. Civ. App.) 424.

"Reformation of Instruments," $ 1.
§ 2. Management and disposal of trust Sale of public lands, see “Public Lands."
property.

Specific performance of contract, see “Specific
Where a husband, with bis wife's knowledge Performance."
and consent and in her presence, entered into
a contract for the construction of buildings on 8 1. Requisites and validity of contract.
her land, he was a trustee, and entitled to sue Contract for purchase of land held valid.-
in his own name for breach of the contract, Morris v. Green (Ark.) 565.
under Rev. St. 1899, § 541.-Simons V. Witt-

Statement of a vendor as to fertility of land
mann (Mo. App.) 791.

held one of fact, which under circumstances
§ 3. Establishment and enforcement of warranting it may be relied on by the pur-
trust.

chaser.-Oneal v. Weisman (Tex. Civ. App.)
Ky, St. 1903, § 2353, held not to affect the 290.
doctrine that equity follows a fund and compels
a restitution as long as it can be identified.-

8 2. Performance of contract.
Board of Trustees of Fordsville v. Postel (Ky.) Where an agreement secured is simply one
1065.

for the payment of money, a forfeiture incur.
Holders of school district bonds, void under red by its nonperformance will be relieved
Const. $ 157, held entitled to follow'the proceeds against on payment of the debt, interest, and
of sale and compel a restitution.-Board of costs.- Morris v. Green (Ark.) 565.
Trustees of Fordsville v. Postel (Ky.) 1065. Vendor under contract for purchase of land

held estopped from insisting on letter of con-

tract.—Morris v. Green (Ark.) 565.
UNDERTAKINGS.

*A purchaser held liable for interest on the
See “Bonds."

price from the day he received actual possession

of the land.- Ewell & Smith v. Jackson's
UNDUE INFLUENCE.

Adm’r (Ky.) 1047, 1135.

§ 3. Rights and liabilities of parties.
Procuring making of will, see "Wills," 8 1. The reduction in the purchase price in a pur-

chase from the vendor by an heir of the de-
UNILATERAL CONTRACTS.

ceased original purchaser from the purchase
price agreed to be paid by him, held to inure to

the benefit of the other heirs of the original pur-
Of sale, see “Sales," 8 2.

chaser.-Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.
UNITED STATES.

8 4. Remedies of vendor.

*A purchaser, taking possession of land under
Citizens, see "Citizens."

a verbal contract of purchase, has the burden
Courts, see "Removal of Causes."

of proving payment of the purchase price in
Indiaps, see "Indians."

an action to foreclose the vendor's lien.—Tillar
Public lands, see “Public Lands," § 1.

v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.

*Neither a purchaser taking possession of
USURY.

land under a verbal contract of purchase nor

his heirs can dispute the title while the pur.
In contract of national bank, see “Banks and chase money remains unpaid, when sued to fore-
Banking," $ 2.

close the vendor's lien.—Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.)

972.
VACATION.

A vendor, in order to secure a decree fore-

closing his vendor's lien, held required to make
Vacating particular proceedings.

a proper deed.--Tillar v. Clayton (Ark.) 972.
See "Judgment," 88 3, 5.

In an action on a note given for the price
Partition sale, see “Partition," $ 1.

of land, the answer held merely a denial that
Sale on execution, see "Execution," $ 4.

plaintiff had made defendant a good title,

and not to a denial that he had accepted a
VALUE.

warranty deed.-Fitzpatrick v. Vincent (Ky.)

1073.
Evidence as to value, see "Damages," 8 5. Grantee, who assumed vendor's lien notes,
Hearsay evidence of, see "Evidence,” 8 6. held not entitled to judgment in trespass to try
Limits of jurisdiction, see “Appeal and Er- title as against the holder of the notes without
ror," $ 1.

paying the same.-Diffe v. Thompson (Tex.
Representations as to value of property sold, Civ. App.) 381.
see "Sales," § 1.

Holder of vendor's lien notes, to whom the

land was conveyed by the maker, held entitled
VARIANCE.

to the payment of such notes before his su-

perior right to the land could vest in a grantee
Between pleading and proof in criminal prosecu- who assumed the same.—Diffie v. Thompson
tions, see "Indictment and Information," 8 3. (Tex. Civ. App.) 381.

Superior title to land conveyed by deed re-
VENDOR AND PURCHASER mains in the grantor until the discharge of in-

cumbrances reserved by the deed.-Diffie v.
See "Brokers"; "Deeds," § 1; "Sales."

Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.) 381.
* Point annotated. See syllabas.

In

see

One who forecloses a vendor's lien held to

WARDS.
possess only such rights as the judgment gives
him.-Wall v. Club Land & Cattle Co. (Tex. See "Guardian and Ward."
Civ. App.) 534.
VENUE.

WARRANT.
Change of as affecting duty of clerk to transmit

County warrants, see "Counties," $ 3.
record, see "Clerks of Courts."
Statement of in information, see "Indictment

WARRANTY.
and Information," § 1.

Evidence of damages for breach, see "Dam-
Of particular actions or proceedings.

ages,' $ 5.
Against carrier, see "Carriers," $ 1.

On sale of goods, see “Sales,” 88 1, 5, 7.
Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," & 4.
For causing death, see "Death," 1.

WATERS AND WATER COURSES.
§ 1. Change of venue or place of trial.

Any objection to change of venue from cir: 8 1. Natural water courses.
cuit court of Jackson county, under Rev. St.

Where a deed described the land conveyed as
1899, s. 822, held waived.-Haxton v. Kansas a certain number of acres off from one side of
City (Mo. Sup.) 714.

a government subdivision, the purchaser was
not entitled to accretions lying between the

land described and a river.—Perry v. Sadler
VERDICT.

(Ark.) 832.
Directing verdict in civil actions, see "Trial," § 4.

Where defendant contracted to convey to
In civil actions, see "Trial," $ 12.

plaintiff a certain named tract of land, con-
criminal
prosecutions,

"Criminal

taining a certain number of acres more or less
Law," § 15.

and bounded on one side by a river, plaintiff
Review on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- held to take title to accretions.-Perry v. Sad-
peal and Error,” $ 21.

ler (Ark.) 832.
Setting aside, see “New Trial," & 1.

§ 2. Artificial ponds, reservoirs, and

channels, dams, and flowage.
VERIFICATION.

One negligently constructing dam and, em-

bankment in and adjacent to stream held not
Of affidavit for continuance, see “Continuance." excused from liability for additional damages
of information, see "Indictment and Informa-have occurred in the absence of the obstruc-

caused thereby during an overflow which would
tion," $ 1.

tions.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harbison
Of pleading, see “Pleading," 88 6, &

(Tex. Civ. App.) 432; Same v. Wetherly (Tex.

Civ. App.) 456; Same v. Oates (Tex. Civ. App.)
VICE PRINCIPALS.

457.
See "Master and Servant," 8 6.

In action against railroad for injury to crops
and realty by overflow, fact that sediment

would not tend to injure plaintiff's land held
VILLAGES.

immaterial.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Har-

bison (Tex. Civ. App.) 452; Same v. Wetherly
See "Schools and School Districts," 8 1 (Tex. Civ. App.) 456; Same v. Oates (Tex. Civ.

App.) 457.
VIS MAJOR.

Mandatory injunction against railroad, com-

manding removal of dam and construction of
As, affecting liability of carrier, see "Car- culverts and sluices in embankment, held suffi-
riers,” g 1.

ciently specific, under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St.

1897, art. 4436.-Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v.
VOTERS.

Harbison (Tex. Civ. App.) 452; Same v. Weth-

erly (Tex. Civ. App.) 456; Same y. Oates (Tex.
See "Elections."

Civ. App.) 457.

In action against railroad for injury to crops
WAGES.

and realty by construction of dam, evidence as

to effect of overflows subsequent to removal of
See “Master and Servant," 8 2

portion of dam held admissible.-Gulf, C. &
S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harbison (Tex. Civ. App.) 452;

Same v. Wetherly (Tex. Civ. App.) 456; Same
WAIVER.

v. Oates (Tex, Civ., App.) 457.
See "Estoppel.”

WAYS.
Of liability as indorser of bill or note, see
"Bills and Notes," $ 1.

Public ways, see "Highways"; "Municipal
Of objections to particular acts or proceedings.

Corporations," $ 8.
See "Pleading," & 8; “Trial," § 13.
Change of venue, see “Venue," § 1.

WEAPONS.
Of rights or remedies.

Liability of carrier for accidental shooting of

passenger, see “Carriers," $ 6.
See “Homestead," & 5; "Insurance," $ 2. Use of in commission of homicide, see "Homi-
Of breach of warranty on sale of goods, see

cide," & 1.
“Sales," $ 5.
Of condition in railroad ticket, see "Car-

WIDOWS.
riers," 8 5.
Of tender of cattle by connecting carrier, see Rights under statutes of descent and distri-
“Carriers," $ 2.

bution, see “Descent and Distribution," $ 1.
• Point annotated. See syllabus.

see

see

WILLS.

of kin only.-Levi v. Fidelity Trust & Safety

Vault Co. (Ky.) 1083.
See “Descent and Distribution"; "Executors Under a will, a nephew of testator, to whom
and Administrators."

was paid his mother's share of the estate,
Charitable bequests and devises, see “Chari-held to take absolutely, so that on his death
ties.”

his property passed under the law of descent.
Construction and execution of trusts,

-Barret v. Gwyn (Ky.) 1096.
"Trusts."

Where realty is devised to testatrix's hus-
Harmless error in will contest, see "Appeal band, with direction that after his debts and
and Error," $ 25.

funeral expenses are all paid the remainder of
Legacy and succession taxes, “Taxa- the tract shall go to others, the devisee takes
tion," $ 3.

only a life estate in the land devised, with re-
Opinion evidence in will contest, see “Evi- mainder over.-Carson v. Carson (Tenn.) 175.
dence," $ 9.

§ 4. Rights and liabilities of devisees
§ 1. Requisites and validity.

and legatees.
In a will contest, evidence held sufficient to The doctrine of election under a will held not
sustain a verdict finding that a will admitted applicable in regard to lands owned by testator
for probate was the result of undue influence. and widow by entirety.-Walker v. Bobbitt
-Dausman v. Rankin (Mo. Sup.) 696.

(Tenn.) 327.
Undue influence, sufficient to invalidate a will, Under Shannon's Code, &$ 4146, 4147, that
must be such as amounts to overpersuasion, portion of a husband's personal property as to
coercion, or force, destroying the free agency which he died intestate held to have passed to
and will power of the testator.—Dausman v his distributees, to the exclusion of his widow.
Rankin (Mo. Sap.) 696.

-Walker v. Bobbitt (Tenu.) 327.
Undue influence may be inferred from facts
and circumstances, from the relation of the

WITNESSES.
parties, and from testator's mental condition.-
Bradford v. Blossom (Mo. Sup.) 721.

See “Affidavits”; “Depositions"; "Evidence."
Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 5335, an instru- | Absence of, as ground for continuance, see
ment in the form of a deed, not written by the "Continuance"; "Criminal Law," $ 14.
grantor, and attested by one witness, cannot Experts, see "Evidence," $ 9.
be probated as a will. --McLain v. Garrison In action against carrier, see "Carriers," $ 2.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 184,

Instructions as to credibility, see “Trial,” § 6.
Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 632 (556), an in. Perjury,' see “Perjury."

Opinions, see “Evidence,” $ 9.
strument in the form of a deed, to take effect
at the grantor's death, held not testamentary 8 1. Competency.
in character, but a deed.-McLain v. Garrison *On a trial under Cr. Code Prac. $ 156, on
(Tex. Civ. App.) 484.

the issue of the sanity of one indicted for crime,
*Under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. art. 5337, a

the wife of the accused is not a competent wit-
will held revoked by a subsequent conditional ness.—Commonwealth v. Woelfel (Ky.) 1061.
holographic will.-Dougherty v. Holscheider In a criminal case, certain testimony of an
(Tex. Civ. App.) 1113.

attorney held not erroneous, on the theory that
*Under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. arts. 5335,

it related to confidential communications.-
5336, letters held to constitute a will.–Dough- State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
erty v. Holscheider (Tex. Civ. App.) 1113. *Rev. St. 1899, & 4652, relative to the incom-

*A will, to become effective only on the petency as witnesses of parties to transactions
happening of a contingency. is a contingent with deceased persons, held not to preclude the
arise, it'is revoked.- Dougherty v. Holsch- force the contract.-Weiermueller v. Scullin
will, and, in case the contingency does not surviving party to a contract from testifying to

conversations had with the party seeking to en.
eider (Tex, Civ. App.) 1113.

(Mo. App.) 1008.
*Where a testator intended to dispose of his
property in case of the happening of an event written by decedent to defendant's wife, and by

On a trial for homicide, contents of letters
named, the will is conditional.--Dougherty v. her showu to defendant, held privileged com-
Holscheider (Tex. Civ. App.) 1113.

munications by wife to husband, and inadmissi-
*Letters written by decedent held to con- ble.-Cole v. Štate (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
stitute a conditional will.-Dougherty v. Hol-

Code Cr. Proc. 1895, art. 774, held not to
scheider (Tex. Civ. App.) 1113.

render a wife incompetent to testify to an ex-
§ 2. Probate, establishment, and annul. clamation made by her husband immediately
ment.

after committing a homicide.-Cole v. State
On an issue as to whether a will was brought (Tex. Cr. App.) 341.
about by fraud and undue influence, held, that A witness held incompetent to testify to
the question was one for the jury.—Bradford transactions with a decedent (Sayles' Rev. Civ.
v. Blossom (Mo. Sup.) 721.

St. 1897, art. 2302).-Jones v. Day (Tex. Civ.
In a suit to set aside a judgment admitting App.) 424.
a will to probate, the burden is upon plaintiffs A defendant, who disclaimed any interest in
to establish the invalidity of the will.–Franklin the notes in controversy, held competent to tes-
v. Boone (Tex. Civ. App.) 262.

tify as to transactions with plaintiff's ancestor.
In a will contest, an instruction held not to -Jones v. Day (Tex. Civ. App.) 424.
take from the consideration of the jury the In a suit by a trustee in bankruptcy to re-
question whether the will had been altered.- cover property, a wituess, who is not a party,
Franklin v. Boone (Tex. Civ. App.) 262. held not incompetent to testify to a conversa-

tion had with the bankrupt's wife, since de-
§ 3. Construction.

ceased, under Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. art. 2302.-
Under a will giving the property to testator's Shelley v. Nolen (Tex. Civ. App.) 524.
wife, with power to distribute "to her rela-
tions and to my relations," held, she was not $ 2. Examination.
required to distribute the property among next Under Kirby's Dig. $ 3088, held not error to

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

cross-examine accused as to attempts to silence In a prosecution for murder, cross-exami-
testimony against him.-Corothers v. State nation of defendant, tending to insinuate that
(Ark.) 585.

he was testifying untruthfully, was improper.
The court, in controlling the cross-examina. -Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.
tiou of accused, is vested with discretionary *Evidence that the reputation of a witness
power.-Corothers v. State (Ark.) 585.

for truth and veracity was bad at places where
The trial judge held entitled to examine wit- he had resided some time before trial is ad-
nesses; he not indicating his opinion of the missible, in connection with similar testimony as
facts.-Arkansas Cent. R. Co. v. Craig (Ark.) to his reputation at a place where he resided at
878.

the time of trial, but for only a short time be-

fore.-Craft v. Barron (Ky.) 1099.
*It was not an abuse of discretion to permit
the commonwealth to recall defendant and prove held admissible, under Rev. St. 1899, § 4680,

Proof of former conviction for misdemeanor
by him that he had been in the penitentiary.- concerning impeachment of witnesses.—State v.
McQueen v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1047.

Heusack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
In condemnation proceedings, certain ques-
tions to a witness on cross-examination in re-

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 4680, state, on pros-
gard to the value of the property held proper.-defendant as to previous conviction for crime.

ecution for crime, held entitled to cross-examine
Union Ry. Co. v. Hunton (Tenn.) 182.

-State v. Heusack (Mo. Sup.) 21.
Where counsel stated that he did not hope
to obtain anything by certain cross-examination contradict certain testimony of defendant's wit-

In homicide, held competent for the state to
that he was about to enter upon, there was no
error in refusing to permit him 'to go on with ness.--State v. Forsha (Mo. Sup.) 746.
it.-Union Ry. Čo. v. Hunton (Tenn.) 182. Where a witness admitted that he had plead-
In a prosecution for murder, certain cross-

ed guilty to a common assault. it was proper
examination held proper.—Long v. State (Tex. had pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with

to show, as affecting his credibility, that he
Cr. App.) 203.

intent to kill.–State v. Forsba (Mo. Sup.) 746.
In a prosecution for murder, held not an Certain testimony held incompetent to con-
abuse of discretion to recall a state's witness tradict testimony of another witness.—Fields v.
and ask him if he was armed on the occa- Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (Mo. App.) 134.
sion of the shooting.-Upton v. State (Tcx.
Cr. App.) 212.

In a prosecution for seduction, the limitation

to contradiction alone of evidence that prior to
Leading questions should not be permitted, the trial prosecutrix stated that defendant raped
where witness understands English sufficiently her held error.- Nolen v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
to answer questions intelligently.-Craddick v. 242.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 347.

The state cannot impeach its own witness,
In a criminal case, there was no error in re- unless the witness has testified to something
quiring a witness for defendant to detail all injurious to the state.-Reyes v. State (Tex. Cr.
the occupations and businesses which he had App.) 245.
been following for several years.-Sextou v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 348.

On a prosecution for crime, evidence of de-

fendaut's intoxication is inadmissible to affect
§ 3. Credibility, impeachment, contra- his credibility.-Tally v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
diction, and corroboration.

339.
*Certain testimony held to contradict witness In a criminal case, it was not error to per-
as to innmaterial matter, and to be improper. mit defendant to be asked, on cross-examina-
-Hinson v. State (Ark.) 947.

tion, if he had not been indicted for adultery
*Impeachment of witness on collateral mat- two or three times in the county of the trial,
ter held inadmissible.—Hot Springs St. Ry. Co.

to which he answered in the affirmative.-Sex-
v. Bodeman (Ark.) 960.

ton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 348.
In ejectment for a mining claim, certain affi-

In a criminal case, held proper to admit cer-
davits filed in United States Land Office held tain testimony of a witness, on cross-examina-
competent to impeach a witness who testified tion, as tending to show her interest in the
that only a small part of certain development case.-Sexton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 348.
work was applied on another claim than the one In a criminal case, held uot error to permit
in question.- White River Min. & Nav. Co. v. a wituess to testify that defendant was drink-
Langston (Ark.) 971.

ing a night he was at witness' house.-Sexton
In a prosecution for homicide, defendant held v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 348.
not entitled to prove that one of the govern- Where a defendant is not surprised by the
ment witnesses was a "coke fiend,” for the testimony of his own wituess, he cannot im-
purpose of affecting her credibility.-Williams peach him.-Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
v. United States (Ind. T.) 331.

357.
*Where a defendant in a criminal prosecu- Defendant could not introduce the evidence
tion testifies as a witness, the state has a right of one of his witnesses upon the examining
to attack his character for truthfulness; but trial to impeach him, where it was substan-
in such case the court should instruct that the tially the same as the verbal evidence of the
evidence is only to be considered for purposes witness.-Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.
of impeachment.-Newman v. Commonwealth

In a prosecution for murder, evidence that a
(Ky.) 1089.

witness for the state, whom the defendants
In a criminal prosecution, a question to an had attempted to impeach, had made a state-
impeaching witness held improper.--Newman v. ment out of court similar to his testimony on
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

trial, held competent.-Franklin v. State (Tex.
In a prosecution for murder, it was improp-

Cr. App.) 357.
for the prosecuting attorney,
examination of defendant, to ask him if it was

WORK AND LABOR.
not a fact that people generally talked about
his being jealous of deceased.-Newman v. Counterclaim in action for work and materials,
Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

see "Set-off and Counterclaim," § 1.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

er

cross-