Under Rev. St. 1895, arts. 749, 5243, as
amended by Laws 1897, p. 168, c. 120, certifi-
cate of Secretary of State that foreign cor-
poration has forfeited its permit for nonpay-
ment of taxes held not evidence of such for-
feiture.-St. Louis Expanded Metal Fireproof
ing Co. v. Beilharz (Tex. Civ. App.) 512.

CORRECTION.

Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 797,
held that the authority of an agent for a county
for the erection of a county building, etc.,_may
be shown by parol.-Jackson-Foxworth Lum-
ber Co. v. Hutchinson County (Tex. Civ. App.)
412.

§ 2. Property, contracts, and liabilities.
A contract, made by the county court, pro-
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.

CORROBORATION.

In action for rape, see "Rape," § 3.

ty and the attorney, under Rev. St. 1899, §
6759.-Morrow v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

A contract made by the county court for the
employment of an attorney not evidenced by
any record entry is void.-Morrow v. Pike

Of wife in suit for divorce, see "Divorce," § 2. County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

COSTS.

In action by or against trustee in bankruptcy,
see "Bankruptcy," § 2.

In action for partition, see "Partition,"

1.

1. Nature, grounds, and extent of
right in general.

Record entry of contract between county
court and an attorney for the employment of
the latter in a certain case held sufficient to

satisfy Rev. St. 1899, §§ 6759, 6760.-Morrow
v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

As the commissioners' court of a county has
no power to contract to pay the cost of publica-
tion of a notice to nonresident taxpayers, it
Plaintiff held not entitled to object for the the county attorney. Baldwin v. Travis Coun-
cannot ratify such a contract when made by

first time on motion to retax costs to a tender
made by defendant.-Thompson
v. Baxter
(Ark.) 985.

2. On appeal or error, and on new
trial or motion therefor.

Where the motion for new trial assigned as
ground that the damages were excessive, and
the instruction was to find a specified sum, with
interest from certain dates, the plaintiff can-
not avoid the costs of the appeal because spe-
cific objection was not made in the trial court.
-Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas City & I.
Air Line Co. (Mo. Sup.) 3.

A party appealing from a judgment errone-
aus on account of a miscalculation held not en-
titled to costs.-Sweet v. Lyon (Tex. Civ. App.)
384.

CO-TENANCY.

See "Tenancy in Common."

COUNCIL.

See "Municipal Corporations," § 4

COUNTERCLAIM.

See "Set-Off and Counterclaim."

COUNTERFEITING.

See "Forgery."

COUNTERMAND.

af order of goods bought, see "Sales," § 3.

COUNTIES.

ty (Tex. Civ. App.) 480.

In an action against a county on a contract
alleged to have been made with the county
attorney, and ratified by the commissioners'
sioners' court had no power to make it, the
court, but which was such that the commis-
county could not be estopped from setting up
this defense. Baldwin v. Travis County (Tex.
Civ. App.) 480.

Gen. Laws 25th Leg. p. 138, c. 103 (Delin-
quent Tax Act) § 15, held to give counties no
power to contract to pay the expense of pub-
lication of notice to nonresident delinquent tax-
payers. Baldwin v. Travis County (Tex. Civ.
App.) 480.

3. Fiscal management, public debt,
securities, and taxation.
Attorney, employed to protect county school
fund provided for by Rev. St. 1899, § 9824,
should be paid out of the fund and not from the
general county revenue.-Morrow
v.
Pike
County (Mo. Sup.) 99.

In an action on a county warrant by the
assignee thereof, in order to entitle him to re-
cover interest from the time of presentment of
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-
hour v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 759; Fink
v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 765.

Under Rev. St. 1899, §§ 3705, 6771, 6798.
6799, 6808, held, that interest did not run on
an assigned county warrant from time of its
presentment and rejection for lack of funds -
Isenhour v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 759;
Fink v. Barton County (Mo. Sup.) 765.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3705, interest at 6
per cent. held to run on a county warrant
which calls for no rate of interest, after pres
entation and failure to pay for lack of money
in the treasury.-Isenhour v. Barton County

Proof of agency for, see "Principal and (Mo. Sup.) 759; Fink v. Barton County (Mo.

Agent," § 2.

§ 1. Government and officers.

Under Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 797,
held that an agent of a county for the erection
of a county building, etc., must have been
authorized by the county commissioners acting
as a body.-Jackson-Foxworth Lumber Co. v.
Hutchinson County (Tex. Civ. App.) 412.

Sup.) 765.

§ 4. Actions.

Where a contract for the employment of an
attorney provides for the payment of the at-
torney out of a certain fund, a judgment in the
attorney's favor on the contract should provide
for its satisfaction out of that fund-Morrow
v. Pike County (Mo. Sup.) 99.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

COUNTY COURTS.

$4. Courts of appellate jurisdiction.
Under Const. art. 7, §§ 14, 4, and the provi-

Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do- sion requiring appeals from the probate court
main," § 2.

COURTS.

to be taken to the circuit court and from thence
to the Supreme Court, the latter court held to
have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of manda-
mus directing a probate court to enter a nunc
cuit court.-Featherstone v. Folbre (Ark.) 554.
The office of school director is an office with-
in Const. art. 6, § 12, conferring exclusive ap-
pellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in
cases involving the title to an office under this
state. - State ex inf. Sutton v. Fasse (Mo.

Attendance on, by nonresident, exemption from pro tunc order granting an appeal to the cir-
service of process, see "Process," § 2.
Clerks, see "Clerks of Courts."
Contempt of court, see "Contempt."
Indian courts, see "Indians."
Judges, see "Judges."

Judicial power, see "Constitutional Law," § 1.
Justices' courts, see "Justices of the Peace."
Mandamus to inferior courts, see "Manda-
mus," § 1.

Province of court and jury, see "Trial," § 5.
Removal of action from state court to United
States court, see "Removal of Causes."
Review of decisions, see "Appeal and Error."
Right to trial by jury, see "Jury," § 1.
Special or local laws, see "Statutes," § 2.
Jurisdiction of particular actions, proceedings,
or subjects.

Sup.) 1.

An appeal raising a constitutional question
not decided when appeal was taken held to be
retained by the Supreme Court.-Boling v. St.
Louis & S. F. R. Co. (Mo. Sup.) 35.

Under Const. art. 5, § 6, and Sayles' Ann.
Civ. St. 1897, art. 997, courts of civil appeals
held to have no power to issue writ of prohibi-
tion when not sought in aid of appellate juris-
diction.-Dunn v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry.
Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App.) 532.

diction, and comity.

See "Criminal Law," § 3; "Divorce," § 2; 5. Concurrent and conflicting juris-
"Partition," § 1; "Quo Warranto," § 1.
Action against carrier, see "Carriers," § 1.
Condemnation proceedings, see "Eminent Do-
main," § 2.

Sale of school lands, see "Public Lands," § 2.
To compel excise commissioner to make and
certify record, see "Certiorari," § 2.

1. Establishment, organization, and
procedure in general.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, construing a state statute as in
conflict with the interstate commerce act, is
conclusive. Spratlin v. St. Louis Southwestern
Ry. Co. (Ark.) 836.

An act creating a criminal court for a county
is not void, because it imposes special duties
on the sheriff and clerk of the court and in-
cidental expenses of the county.-State v. Etch-
man (Mo. Sup.) 643.

Ruling of Supreme Court that a certain con-
tract is not in violation of the anti-trust act of
1903 (Laws 1903, p. 119, c. 94) held conclusive
that the contract is not in violation of the act
of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 246, c. 146).-Ft. Worth
& D. C. Ry. Co. v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 370.

§ 2. Courts of general original jurisdic-
tion.

A petition held not to show a cause of ac-
tion within jurisdiction of the district court.-
Moore v. Snell (Tex. Civ. App.) 270.

Consideration of a petition for the appoint-
ment of a receiver for a corporation by judge
held an assumption of jurisdiction over the cor-
poration's property, precluding a subsequent at-
tachment from operating as a lien thereon.-
Worden v. Pruter (Tex. Civ. App.) 434.

COVENANTS.

1. Construction and operation.

*Covenantee in covenant against incumbran-
ces held entitled to sue for a breach, although
he had knowledge of such breach.-Brown v.
Taylor (Tenn.) 933.

2. Actions for breach.

*Covenantee in broken covenant against in-
cumbrances held not entitled to recover as dam-
ages certain counsel fees.-Brown v. Taylor
(Tenn.) 933.

Recovery of certain special damages for
breach of covenant against incumbrances de-
nied.-Brown v. Taylor (Tenn.) 933.

*Measure of covenantee's damages for breach
of covenant against incumbrances stated.-
Brown v. Taylor (Tenn.) 933.

Vendee held entitled to recover from the veu-
dor the value of the land to which title failed,
and costs of suit.-McBride v. Burns (Tex. Civ.
App.) 394.

COVERTURE.

A deduction by the purchaser of cattle of $100
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.
& S. F. Ry. Co. v. Waddell Bros. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 390.

3. Courts of limited or inferior juris-
diction.

In a suit by a carrier to enforce the lien
given by Rev. St. 1895, arts. 327, 328, 330, the
value of the property on which the lien is
claimed, and not the amount of the freight
charges, determines the jurisdiction of the trial
court. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Rucker (Tex.
Civ. App.) 815.

Where petition by carrier seeks the recovery
of property on which freight charges are due,
the value of the property determines the juris-
diction of the court.-Texas & N. O. R. Co. v.
Rucker (Tex. Civ. App.) 815.

CREDIBILITY.

Of witness, see "Witnesses," § 3.

CREDITORS.

See "Assignments for Benefit of Creditors";
"Bankruptcy"; "Fraudulent Conveyances."
Remedies against surety, see "Principal and
Surety," § 4.
Subrogation to rights of creditor, see "Subro-
gation."

CREDITORS' SUIT.

Remedies in cases of assignments, see "As-
signments for Benefit of Creditors," § 1.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

*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
justice of jurisdiction.-Trevinio v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 356.

§ 6. Evidence - Judicial notice, pre-
sumptions, and burden of proof.
State held not bound to show in rebuttal of
plea of former jeopardy, based on account of In a prosecution for violation of the local op-
suspension of prosecution for seduction, that tion law, certain testimony held hearsay and
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

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

In prosecutions for unlawfully selling intoxi-
cating liquors, certain language used by prose-
cuting attorney in his closing arguments held
not reversible error.-Reese v. State (Ark.) 841.

*Under the statute, providing that the fail-
ure of defendant in a criminal prosecution
to testify in his own behalf shall not be com-
mented upon, the prosecuting attorney has no
right to refer to defendant's failure to testify
as a witness upon an application for bail.-
Newman v. Commonwealth (Ky.) 1089.

inal case, in reference to testimony which was
Argument of counsel for the state in a crim-
not objected to and which was not made the
subject of a motion to strike, was not error.-
State v. Cummings (Mo. Sup.) 706.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.

Statement of district attorney in argument
relative to failure to put plaintiff's character in
issue held proper.-Moore v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 228.

In a prosecution for seduction, an instruc
tion held on the weight of the testimony.-
Garlas v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 345.

Where one of defendant's witnesses testified
for murder and tried for hog theft, it was not
error to fail to limit the evidence by instruc-
tion.-Franklin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.

On a prosecution for burglary, permitting dis-on cross-examination that he had been indicted
trict attorney in arguing to jury to refer to
exclusion of evidence of conspiracy to burglar-
ize held error.-Tally v. State (Tex. Cr. App.)
339.

Argument of counsel in a criminal case should
be kept strictly within the testimony adduced
upon the trial.-Pool v. State (Tex. Cr App.)
350.

§ 17. Instructions.

An instruction on a trial for homicide held
properly refused, because invading the province
of the jury.-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

Where evidence is introduced to contradict
a witness, it is proper to instruct that it can
be considered only for that purpose.-Franklin
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 357.

A charge as to corroboration of accomplice
testimony, though not following White's Ann.
Code Cr. Proc. art. 781, held not erroneous.-
McKinney v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.

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.

In homicide, instructions specially singling
out the testimony of certain person who ac-
companied defendant on the occasion of the
killing held properly refused.-State v. Bailey
(Mo. Sup.) 733.

In a prosecution for homicide, defendant held
entitled to a charge that proof of his good char-
acter should be considered in weighing his credi-
bility.-Phelan v. State (Tenn.) 1040.

In a prosecution for homicide, refusal to
charge as to the weight to be given to evidence
of an undenied accusation of defendant by his
daughter immediately after the killing held
prejudicial error.-Phelan v. State (Tenn.) 1040.
In a prosecution for homicide, an instruction
that, if defendant denied an accusation made by
his daughter immediately after the killing, such
accusation could not be considered for any pur-
pose, held properly refused.-Phelan v. State
(Tenn.) 1040.

In a prosecution for homicide, refusal of a
request submitting to the jury whether a denial
of an accusation made by defendant's daughter
was required held error.-Phelan V. State
(Tenn.) 1040.

On prosecution for homicide, charge on self-
defense held erroneous under express provi-
sions of statute prohibiting court from giving a
charge on the weight of testimony.-Craiger
v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 208.

Where, in a criminal case, the court charged
correctly, special charges, in so far as they an-
nounced the same principles, were not called
for.-Tones v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 217.

Where dying declarations of deceased were
made while under the influence of opiates, the
court should have guarded the matter by an
appropriate instruction.-Roberts v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 221.

Court held required under the evidence to
charge that if accused's confession was not vol-
untary it must be disregarded.-Johnson v.
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 223.

In a prosecution for murder, a charge that,
if the jury believed that after defendant jus-
tifiably fired the first shot deceased ran and
defendant pursued and killed him, though he
did not believe himself then in danger, defend-
ant was guilty, was not on the weight of evi-
dence in assuming that deceased fled.-Cole-
man v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238.

On prosecution for crime, charge as to effect
of evidence of defendant's intoxication held er-
roneous, as in violation of statute prohibiting
charges on weight of testimony.-Tally v. State
(Tex. Cr. App.) 339.

§ 18.

-

Custody, conduct, and delib-
erations of jury.

The refusal to set aside a conviction on the
ground of separation of the jury held not error.
-Ince v. State (Ark.) 818.

The burden of proving that a juror, separating
from the jury, was not exposed to improper in-
fluence, held not on the state.-Ince v. State
(Ark.) 818.

The court held not to have abused its discre-
counsel was arguing the questions of law to the
tion in sending the jury out while accused's
court.-Upton v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 212.

An instruction held proper, under White's
Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 734, where the jury
after retirement asked to have a witness' testi-
State (Tex. Cr. App.) 1012.
mony read to them (art. 735).-McKinney v.

§ 19. Motions for new trial and in ar-

rest.

the overruling of defendant's motion for a new
In a prosecution for theft from the person,
trial on the ground of newly discovered evi-
dence held not error.-Hilscher v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 227.

of the case for trial the court under the cir-
In a criminal case held that on the calling
cumstances should have given accused an op-
portunity to employ other counsel or to have
procured his witnesses.-Jackson v. State (Tex.
Cr. App.) 239.

In a criminal case held that a motion for a
new trial should have been granted.-Jack-
son v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 239.

In a criminal case, certain evidence relied on
as newly discovered held not to have been
shown to be such.-Sexton v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 348.

In a criminal case, certain evidence held no
ground for a new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence.-Sexton v. State (Tex. Cr.
App.) 348.

In prosecution for bringing stolen horses into
the state, new trial should have been granted on
the ground of the absence of a certain witness.—
Long v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 809.
Point annotated. See syllabus.